Return to Small Ball

[Cecil]

I Agree except Bench should only include Hayes if the opposing Center is 6'9" or less, or Foul trouble, or ingury

With Hayes and Trob up front this bench line up is gonna kill us on size alone, 1,2,3 spots all smaller too

Maybe a 3 man rotation of bigs might work

I'm not sure if Robinson will be as NBA ready as Hayes is at the beginning of the season. You are right about their sizes, they couldn't play together, but rather one of them with either Thompson or Cousins. Hopefully Robinson will learn to play at a NBA pace after training camp/preseason, and he will be ready from the first game on..

 

[bajaden]

What Smart says and what Samrt does can be two totally different things. BUT, I think it was made quite evident to both Smart and the organization that Reke will not tolerate anymore of the SF nonsense when his agent blew through town in the spring. That message I think has been passed down to Smart, and so I really don't expect to see it for more than spot minutes. Doing so would have to result in a quick in season trade of Reke, unless you want to sit on a disgruntled ineffective guy all year until he leaves you at year's end.

I actually disagree with Bajaden on that point. Petrie is the steward of the franchise. Smart is nothing yet. A nobody coach on the last year of his contract. Yes you DO tell that coach what to do, at least in regards to major iasues with major personnel. You don't let any passing Musselman/Theus/Natt or whoever make stupid decisions that force you to make franchise-altering roster moves.

P.S. As an aside, let me mention that I have more than half a notion that Petrie ok'd the Reke at SF experiment in the first place. Remember Chuckles the hick always bleating about how Reke could play SF on the Kings telecasts? I've long been suspicious when he takes his nonsensical stances that he, as a member of the Kings front ofice in name at least, would not take those stances unless he knew how we as a franchsie were thinking. Then people forget that Geoff Petrie was on the same plane with the team when that switch was made He had accompanied the team out on the East coat road trip ostensibly to do scouting. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts he was gauging our own team as well, and you know he and Smart were chatting. Then Smart makes the move a couple of days into the trip. Hard to see that being done under those circumstances without at least a tacit approval by Petrie. But it did not work. And gee, shocker. Its embarrassing that I could tell these supposed basketball minds these things and save them their blundering. And Reke got lost. His agent hit town. And Reke finally woke back up when playing SG in place of Thornton for the final games of the season. I don't think Reke starting the season at SF is going to be acceptable no matter what Smart's smallball loving heart may tell him.

I didn't say you couldn't micro-manage a coach, I just don't think thats the way to go. I mean if you have to tell a coach how to coach, then go hire a different coach. If he's going to be a legit coach in the NBA, then you have to let him rise or sink on his own merits. Now having said that, I do think the GM can tell the coach what he likes, what he's trying to build, and how it might be in the coaches best long term interests to lean in that direction. But I think he has to let the coach decide how he's going to take the team in that direction.

I mean if you don't want a coach to play, so called small ball, then don't give him the pieces to do just that. If your a coach, and all your best players, save one, are under 6'6" tall, your sort of screwed at trying to play tall ball. It wasn't Smart that went out and signed Hayes. And honestly, Hayes would be OK, if you had at least one more good player in the 6'10" to 7' range that you could pair him with. Instead he got paired with Hickson, who was a wash, Outlaw, who played like crap for most of the season save the last few games, and Donte, who doesn't know the definition of the word rebound. It was either that, or play Cousins and JT 40 minutes a game.

I still hopeful that we'll make a move to aquire one more big man for insurance. I want no roster excuses for Smart this season.

 

[bajaden]

There weren't a lot of names to get excited about in free agency but Ramon Sessions, Leandro Barbosa, Kirk Hinrich and even DeLonte West were/are available as a backup point or combo guard to spell IT. Even Terrence Williams could have been resigned to add depth and flexibility in the back court. Is Aaron Brooks a better player than most or all of the players on that list? Yeah. Is he the best fit? I'd say definitely no.

For that matter the Kings could have drafted Lillard instead of Robinson. I definitely expected more out of Robinson in the summer league, but even on draft night I didn't see him as a great fit next to our only real cornerstone player. Or they could have traded down with Houston and picked up Lowry who gives a different look and feel than Thomas.

Again, I think Brooks is a fine backup PG, but not for this team. And in a larger sense it simply doesn't feel like Petrie and the front office have any sort of a plan in terms of building this team.

I'll admit this. Brooks wasn't my first or even second, or third choice. As a matter of fact, he hadn't even entered my mind until he was mentioned as being signed by the Kings. But, I'll wait and see how it plays out. And while he's no giant, he is 6' in shoes, and he does have an above average wingspan for his height, so he plays a little bigger than his height. In one of your posts, you implied that Petire failed to fulfill his promise of finding some outside shooting, and in the next breath, you mentioned that Brooks is a very good outside shooter. I'm interested to see how his venture in china influenced his overall game.

I guess where I'm confused is why Brooks isn't a good fit for the team. Other than his inability in the past to play less than stelar defense. On the whole, he's an upgrade, at least in the short term, over Fredette. And if you look at it as losing Whiteside, and gaining Brooks, then its a big step forward.

 

[gunks]

Well, I know this much...if our starting 5 is:
Cousins
Thompson
Johnson
Brooks
Evans

With Thornton, Robinson and Thomas off the bench looks ALOT better than anything we've put on the floor the past 5 years...we've endured far worse lineups on the floor than this.

Has it been said by Smart/Petrie that Thornton is going to be a 6th man? I know Reke is getting moved back to a guard position (thank Jeebus), and considering we have Brooks and IT, I'd imagine that Reke is going to be playing OG...Soooo, are we just assuming Thornton is going to the bench?

Just curious. Thornton seems like a prima donna to me, I get the feeling that dude will make a fuss about being on the bench, even with the glory that goes to big minute 6th man SGs like Manu and Harden.

Anyways, I agree that that is the best lineup we've had in a minute. Defense is going to be brutal, unless JJ and Reke step it up on the perimeter. But our offense should be alright. IT/Thornton/Robinson is a pretty rad second unit.

 

[Section 101]

Has it been said by Smart/Petrie that Thornton is going to be a 6th man? I know Reke is getting moved back to a guard position (thank Jeebus), and considering we have Brooks and IT, I'd imagine that Reke is going to be playing OG...Soooo, are we just assuming Thornton is going to the bench?

Just curious. Thornton seems like a prima donna to me, I get the feeling that dude will make a fuss about being on the bench, even with the glory that goes to big minute 6th man SGs like Manu and Harden.

Anyways, I agree that that is the best lineup we've had in a minute. Defense is going to be brutal, unless JJ and Reke step it up on the perimeter. But our offense should be alright. IT/Thornton/Robinson is a pretty rad second unit.

At this point the entire line up is still up in the air. I don't think you can pencil in anyone at a specific position. Only thing we know is Cuz and Evans will be starting.

 

[rainmaker]

Zing ! I asked the samething and was jumped on. Video was never bumped where Smart said Evans was going to be the PG. I remember it the same way as you.

I've posted it in about five separate threads. I've also told you personally where you can find it. That's how you remember it because you're too damn lazy to go listen to it, as I remember you blowing it off without ever having listened to it.

Yeah, zing indeed.

 

[rainmaker]

It's during his answer to a question inbetween minutes 6-7.

But sure, go ahead and say what Smart says doesn't matter and he can't be held responsible for what he says, while at the same time backing him and acting like he's a legit NBA head coach. Most legit NBA head coaches don't need fans stepping in and saying, "he didn't mean it, it's just coach being coach". That would generally mean Smart doesn't have much of a clue, doesn't have a plan and makes s*** up as he goes. If he can't even decide where to play Reke and stick with it, then what makes anyone think he'll handle the shoot first quartet of IT/Brooks/MT/Reke correctly?

 

[Glenn]

It's during his answer to a question in between minutes 6-7.

Thank you and Spike.

 

[Agent23]

It's during his answer to a question inbetween minutes 6-7.

But sure, go ahead and say what Smart says doesn't matter and he can't be held responsible for what he says, while at the same time backing him and acting like he's a legit NBA head coach. Most legit NBA head coaches don't need fans stepping in and saying, "he didn't mean it, it's just coach being coach". That would generally mean Smart doesn't have much of a clue, doesn't have a plan and makes s*** up as he goes. If he can't even decide where to play Reke and stick with it, then what makes anyone think he'll handle the shoot first quartet of IT/Brooks/MT/Reke correctly?

Zing!

 

[gunks]

At this point the entire line up is still up in the air. I don't think you can pencil in anyone at a specific position. Only thing we know is Cuz and Evans will be starting.

I dont even know if we can bank on that. Brooks/MT could be our starting backcourt. It'll be exciting, we'll get outscored 30 to 27 in a lot of 1st quarters next season!

 

[Section 101]

It's during his answer to a question inbetween minutes 6-7.

But sure, go ahead and say what Smart says doesn't matter and he can't be held responsible for what he says, while at the same time backing him and acting like he's a legit NBA head coach. Most legit NBA head coaches don't need fans stepping in and saying, "he didn't mean it, it's just coach being coach". That would generally mean Smart doesn't have much of a clue, doesn't have a plan and makes s*** up as he goes. If he can't even decide where to play Reke and stick with it, then what makes anyone think he'll handle the shoot first quartet of IT/Brooks/MT/Reke correctly?

taking a chance on Evans sliding him down to the small forward position to let his game grow there so we can eventually move him back down the line to eventually become a one again. Because I wanted him to see the game

That doesn't say he will be the starting PG next year. It says he was trying to help teach Evans to become a better player and if his game grows he would be able to play the one again.

And I posted this last year and you didn't listen. IT average like 10 shots a game as a starter. That is on the mid to low side for a starting PG. That is not a shoot first PG.

 

[Spike]

Thank you and Spike.

Hey! I remember stuff sometimes.

 

[Lockehead]

We cannot play small ball. We need to utilize our best weapon, Demarcus Cousins, and that means developing our half court team.

As for Tyreke, i can't see how he can coexist with Cousins if he's playing as a PG. I've said this before, he should be developing as a scoring SG, while another PG defers to them both.

 

[ElRey]

Smart would be stupid to play Tyreke at 3 again...Tyreke already says he's not going to play the 3, and the team ended up losing MORE with him playing the 3. If Smart plays Tyreke at SF again, he's going to get fired well before the Allstar break.

 

[Kingster]

There weren't a lot of names to get excited about in free agency but Ramon Sessions, Leandro Barbosa, Kirk Hinrich and even DeLonte West were/are available as a backup point or combo guard to spell IT. Even Terrence Williams could have been resigned to add depth and flexibility in the back court. Is Aaron Brooks a better player than most or all of the players on that list? Yeah. Is he the best fit? I'd say definitely no.

For that matter the Kings could have drafted Lillard instead of Robinson. I definitely expected more out of Robinson in the summer league, but even on draft night I didn't see him as a great fit next to our only real cornerstone player. Or they could have traded down with Houston and picked up Lowry who gives a different look and feel than Thomas.

Again, I think Brooks is a fine backup PG, but not for this team. And in a larger sense it simply doesn't feel like Petrie and the front office have any sort of a plan in terms of building this team.

I think that fans want to think that there is a long term plan, a plan that Petrie has, a plan that Smart has that extends some time into the future. Well, there's only one plan for this team: Whatever works. If it doesn't work - e.g. Tyreke at the 1 - then they go to another plan - IT at the 1. And if Tyreke doesn't work at the 2, they'll go to another plan. And if Johnson doesn't work at the 3? Yep, another plan. They thought Salmons was going to work at the 3 with defense and outside shooting. It didn't work. They went to another plan. They thought Jimmer was going to work at the point. It didn't work. They went to another plan. It's very obvious to me that Petrie doesn't believe in long term strategic planning for this team. Long term strategic planning implies that you can predict cause and effect for years into the future. It's the long term strategic planning approach that wants to insert Tyreke at the 1 for several years on the belief that one day he will finally put it together the point guard. This approach appeals to idealogues. Petrie isn't an idealogue; he's a pragmatist. His focus is much more short term and empirical. He experiments with players and then looks on the court to see the evidence, not in his strategic planning manual. The attractive thing about the long term strategic planning approach is that it provides a sense of continuity and consistency, whereas the pragmatist approach lends itself to herky-jerky relatively short term changes. But like I said, the long term strategic planning approach assumes long term effects when in real-life circumstances they may not be warranted. If you want a long term plan, Petrie just isn't your guy.

 

[Kingster]

That doesn't say he will be the starting PG next year. It says he was trying to help teach Evans to become a better player and if his game grows he would be able to play the one again.

And I posted this last year and you didn't listen. IT average like 10 shots a game as a starter. That is on the mid to low side for a starting PG. That is not a shoot first PG.

".......down the line....."

Very much agree. And "down the line" could be next season, or two, three, who knows how many years from now? There is no promise about this coming season, that's for sure. It's all contingent upon performance - on the "growing" of his game.

 

[funkykingston]

I'll admit this. Brooks wasn't my first or even second, or third choice. As a matter of fact, he hadn't even entered my mind until he was mentioned as being signed by the Kings. But, I'll wait and see how it plays out. And while he's no giant, he is 6' in shoes, and he does have an above average wingspan for his height, so he plays a little bigger than his height. In one of your posts, you implied that Petire failed to fulfill his promise of finding some outside shooting, and in the next breath, you mentioned that Brooks is a very good outside shooter. I'm interested to see how his venture in china influenced his overall game.

I guess where I'm confused is why Brooks isn't a good fit for the team. Other than his inability in the past to play less than stelar defense. On the whole, he's an upgrade, at least in the short term, over Fredette. And if you look at it as losing Whiteside, and gaining Brooks, then its a big step forward.

Two things regarding Brooks and his outside shooting. He WAS a very good 3pt shooter for one year in Houston where he shot nearly 40% from deep. The year before that he was above average at 36% and his rookie year he shot an average 33% which didn't crack the top 100 players for that season. More importantly he shot just UNDER 30% his last season in the NBA and then was out of the league for a year. I certainly hope he comes in and regains his form, but outside of one very good year I wouldn't say Brooks is a great outside shooter or the type of role player you acquire FOR his shooting. He's a quick, veteran PG who can score and run a team and who had one strong statistical year shooting the three.

But more importantly, when I watched Brooks play I didn't see a catch-and-shoot player. The vast majority of his midrange and deep shots came from him with the ball in his hands and either creating space with his dribble or coming off a screen. And a 3pt threat on the wing stretches the defense differently than a PG who is a threat to pull up and shoot. Clearly you want your PG to be a good shooter so that his man can't sag off him (ala Rondo or Tyreke when playing the point) but at the same time the threat of a Peja/Korver/Redick/Kapono type player on the wing keeps his man from looking to help off which opens things up in a different way than the guy with the ball being a threat.

Again, I like Brooks and I hope he plays well this year. But if the front office didn't see IT as a long term solution because he's undersized and defensively challenged then I can't see how Brooks is an improvement. He's taller and longer (though still on the small side for the position) but more importantly he's incredibly slight and IT showed last season that (IMO) he's already a better defender than Brooks. Also, the team is apparently moving Tyreke back to the 2. If so the implication is that Thornton comes off the bench meaning that Tyreke is now the only player that isn't undersized in our backcourt rotation. I'm not down on Brooks so much as wondering why the team isn't trying to maximize the strengths it already has.

Purely on the surface, the net gains this offseason have been positive. JT returns, Brooks and Johnson are added via free agency and a trade and Robinson is drafted. This team should be better than last year and that is a good thing.

But if you think about the fact that last offseason the Kings had three bonafide talents in Thornton, Evans and Cousins, more caproom than any other team in the league and two years of high lottery picks (#7 and #5) and the result is the roster that will start this season that's pretty disappointing in my opinion.

 

[Kingster]

Two things regarding Brooks and his outside shooting. He WAS a very good 3pt shooter for one year in Houston where he shot nearly 40% from deep. The year before that he was above average at 36% and his rookie year he shot an average 33% which didn't crack the top 100 players for that season. More importantly he shot just UNDER 30% his last season in the NBA and then was out of the league for a year. I certainly hope he comes in and regains his form, but outside of one very good year I wouldn't say Brooks is a great outside shooter or the type of role player you acquire FOR his shooting. He's a quick, veteran PG who can score and run a team and who had one strong statistical year shooting the three.

But more importantly, when I watched Brooks play I didn't see a catch-and-shoot player. The vast majority of his midrange and deep shots came from him with the ball in his hands and either creating space with his dribble or coming off a screen. And a 3pt threat on the wing stretches the defense differently than a PG who is a threat to pull up and shoot. Clearly you want your PG to be a good shooter so that his man can't sag off him (ala Rondo or Tyreke when playing the point) but at the same time the threat of a Peja/Korver/Redick/Kapono type player on the wing keeps his man from looking to help off which opens things up in a different way than the guy with the ball being a threat.

Again, I like Brooks and I hope he plays well this year. But if the front office didn't see IT as a long term solution because he's undersized and defensively challenged then I can't see how Brooks is an improvement. He's taller and longer (though still on the small side for the position) but more importantly he's incredibly slight and IT showed last season that (IMO) he's already a better defender than Brooks. Also, the team is apparently moving Tyreke back to the 2. If so the implication is that Thornton comes off the bench meaning that Tyreke is now the only player that isn't undersized in our backcourt rotation. I'm not down on Brooks so much as wondering why the team isn't trying to maximize the strengths it already has.

Purely on the surface, the net gains this offseason have been positive. JT returns, Brooks and Johnson are added via free agency and a trade and Robinson is drafted. This team should be better than last year and that is a good thing.

But if you think about the fact that last offseason the Kings had three bonafide talents in Thornton, Evans and Cousins, more caproom than any other team in the league and two years of high lottery picks (#7 and #5) and the result is the roster that will start this season that's pretty disappointing in my opinion.

I haven't seen that piece of news. I have heard Reynolds say they don't see IT playing over 30 minutes a game on a regular basis; that's all I've heard. Also, everything I've heard is positive with respect to IT's defense, just the opposite of being "defensively challenged."

In any case, look to their actions, not their words. They got a another smaller pg in Brooks. (Big whoop if he's a couple inches taller than IT). It tells me that the characteristic of size isn't at the top of their list when it comes to their evaluation of point guards; it tells me they value other qualities more than size. Again, with respect to actions not words, Tyreke is a 6'6" guard; IT is 5'9". If size was the primary determinant for who they wanted at pg, Tyreke would still be the guy. In fact, if again you look to their actions and not their words, then you could make a case that they wanted another IT - more of the same. As you and others have said or implied, Brooks is pretty close to IT. So maybe they like what they have at pg. They just want more of it.

 

[bajaden]

Two things regarding Brooks and his outside shooting. He WAS a very good 3pt shooter for one year in Houston where he shot nearly 40% from deep. The year before that he was above average at 36% and his rookie year he shot an average 33% which didn't crack the top 100 players for that season. More importantly he shot just UNDER 30% his last season in the NBA and then was out of the league for a year. I certainly hope he comes in and regains his form, but outside of one very good year I wouldn't say Brooks is a great outside shooter or the type of role player you acquire FOR his shooting. He's a quick, veteran PG who can score and run a team and who had one strong statistical year shooting the three.

But more importantly, when I watched Brooks play I didn't see a catch-and-shoot player. The vast majority of his midrange and deep shots came from him with the ball in his hands and either creating space with his dribble or coming off a screen. And a 3pt threat on the wing stretches the defense differently than a PG who is a threat to pull up and shoot. Clearly you want your PG to be a good shooter so that his man can't sag off him (ala Rondo or Tyreke when playing the point) but at the same time the threat of a Peja/Korver/Redick/Kapono type player on the wing keeps his man from looking to help off which opens things up in a different way than the guy with the ball being a threat.

Again, I like Brooks and I hope he plays well this year. But if the front office didn't see IT as a long term solution because he's undersized and defensively challenged then I can't see how Brooks is an improvement. He's taller and longer (though still on the small side for the position) but more importantly he's incredibly slight and IT showed last season that (IMO) he's already a better defender than Brooks. Also, the team is apparently moving Tyreke back to the 2. If so the implication is that Thornton comes off the bench meaning that Tyreke is now the only player that isn't undersized in our backcourt rotation. I'm not down on Brooks so much as wondering why the team isn't trying to maximize the strengths it already has.

Purely on the surface, the net gains this offseason have been positive. JT returns, Brooks and Johnson are added via free agency and a trade and Robinson is drafted. This team should be better than last year and that is a good thing.

But if you think about the fact that last offseason the Kings had three bonafide talents in Thornton, Evans and Cousins, more caproom than any other team in the league and two years of high lottery picks (#7 and #5) and the result is the roster that will start this season that's pretty disappointing in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you say. However it turns out that the Kings didn't have more cap room than any other team in the league. At least this offseason. Now if you were referring to the prior offseason, then except for the Heat, you'd be correct. Your right about Brooks last season in the NBA, but he did say that he was hampered all season playing on a sprained ankle that was never given time to heal. I willing to accept that excuse since he had improved his 3pt shooting every year from his rookie year up to that point. So we'll see. He says he learned how to distribute the ball better in china where making sure the stars on the team got their shots was a priority. So once again we'll see.

The biggest overall question is, does he help the team. The simple answer is yes! In the short term at least, a rotation at PG of IT and Brooks is an improvement over IT and Jimmer. Who knows what the future holds with Jimmer, but for now, its an improvement. Are there other PG's I would have rather had? Sure! Like Lowery! Would Lowery have been a bigger improvement? On paper at least, yes! And in my opinion, yes! Did we make any effort to aquire him? Who knows! It sure looked like an easy deal to make when you look at what he was traded for. But without knowing all the particulars, and how it might have affected other moves, I can't make informed opinion on the subject. I just wish we had him. Sorry, I'm just not into the blame game. Unless of couse were talking about George Maloof.

 

[funkykingston]

I agree with most of what you say. However it turns out that the Kings didn't have more cap room than any other team in the league. At least this offseason. Now if you were referring to the prior offseason, then except for the Heat, you'd be correct. Your right about Brooks last season in the NBA, but he did say that he was hampered all season playing on a sprained ankle that was never given time to heal. I willing to accept that excuse since he had improved his 3pt shooting every year from his rookie year up to that point. So we'll see. He says he learned how to distribute the ball better in china where making sure the stars on the team got their shots was a priority. So once again we'll see.

The biggest overall question is, does he help the team. The simple answer is yes! In the short term at least, a rotation at PG of IT and Brooks is an improvement over IT and Jimmer. Who knows what the future holds with Jimmer, but for now, its an improvement. Are there other PG's I would have rather had? Sure! Like Lowery! Would Lowery have been a bigger improvement? On paper at least, yes! And in my opinion, yes! Did we make any effort to aquire him? Who knows! It sure looked like an easy deal to make when you look at what he was traded for. But without knowing all the particulars, and how it might have affected other moves, I can't make informed opinion on the subject. I just wish we had him. Sorry, I'm just not into the blame game. Unless of couse were talking about George Maloof.

It's a frustrating thing to talk about dream scenarios. Because in my mind that would have been getting the #1 pick and Anthony Davis and then a trade for a late first for Jeffrey Taylor.

Or perhaps more realistically, dealing Hayes and the fifth pick for Lowry and a pick that becomes Henson as well as amnestying Salmons so the team could sign AK47.

The reality is that this Kings team is more talented with the additions of Brooks, Johnson and Robinson and it was good to see JT resigned for a reasonable contract. In fact those FOUR guys combined will make less next year than Omer Asik will make in the third year of his deal with Houston so things certainly could be worse. They are all relatively low cost investments that could pay off very well.

It isn't really in my nature to be pessimistic. I don't like playing I told you so and every year I hope that things fall just right for the Kings to have a breakout year. Brooks being a revelation at point, Johnson being a great fit at SF, Tyreke improving his shot, Cuz continuing his ascension in a major way, Robinson finding his way in the league and being a rebounding force, Thornton becoming a leading sixth man of the year candidate, IT showing last year wasn't a fluke and building on his success, Jimmer finding his role and being a positive role player, Salmons showing that last year WAS a fluke and being a contributor, and JT continuing to be a hard working, versatile big with improving consistentcy would all be things I'd love to see.

It's hard to be a fan of a team that, outside of a few great years, has been consistently downtrodden and unsuccessful. But it's so much harder when the franchise's future is so uncertain with serious doubt about the owner's competitive desire and even greater doubt about whether the team will even stay in town. I think that colors a lot of the views on this board more so than if this same offseason occurred without the crushing disappointment of the Maloofs killing the arena deal.

The team got better. Petrie and company may not have done what I think is best but they undeniably added talent. And I'll be rooting for me to be wrong and them right and the team to have a surprisingly good season.