So no trade help either ???? WTF ??

[jpsls]

Based on what you've seen so far, would you?

We know this team has had bad coaching right? Why doesn't Hickson fall under the category of players who have been affected by the lockout, coaching, lack of defined role?

 

[The Hammer]

We know this team has had bad coaching right? Why doesn't Hickson fall under the category of players who have been affected by the lockout, coaching, lack of defined role?

I like a lot of what Hickson brings. But he does have horrible hands, and very little basketball instinct. He'd flourish best in an established system, off the bench, to come in and grab some boards, also, would have to be paired with good interior defender not to risk having the other team's second unit abuse you inside. Could play a role for OKC, perhaps. Boston I thought would have been a good fit. Orlando perhaps. Nobody must've called.

 

[steelevt]

We know this team has had bad coaching right? Why doesn't Hickson fall under the category of players who have been affected by the lockout, coaching, lack of defined role?

I don't know if we will get a new coach since we picked up smart's option. So assuming we still have smart at the end of the season, and you blame coaching, jj will still be the same player by the time we decide to keep him or let him go. If he still has hands of stone and no post up game, but shows athleticism would you keep him or match if someone gives him an offer? Are you willing to pay to keep him as your 3rd or 4th big considering half the forum doesn't even want him in the game longer than five minutes? If I know he's not improving, I would prefer a pick over letting him walk.

 

[jpsls]

I like a lot of what Hickson brings. But he does have horrible hands, and very little basketball instinct. He'd flourish best in an established system, off the bench, to come in and grab some boards, also, would have to be paired with good interior defender not to risk having the other team's second unit abuse you inside. Could play a role for OKC, perhaps. Boston I thought would have been a good fit. Orlando perhaps. Nobody must've called.

Hickson is the kind of role player this team need if he can develop properly. A PF who can rebound at a good rate, doesn't command the ball, hustles, and can run the break. I know we have Thompson, but Hickson has a much higher ceiling.

 

[steelevt]

Hickson is the kind of role player this team need if he can develop properly. A PF who can rebound at a good rate, doesn't command the ball, hustles, and can run the break. I know we have Thompson, but Hickson has a much higher ceiling.

This is what we were hoping for when we threw in the pick. It hasn't really panned out. I'm still hoping, but we're running out of time before we decide if we should keep him or not.

 

[jpsls]

I don't know if we will get a new coach since we picked up smart's option. So assuming we still have smart at the end of the season, and you blame coaching, jj will still be the same player by the time we decide to keep him or let him go. If he still has hands of stone and no post up game, but shows athleticism would you keep him or match if someone gives him an offer? Are you willing to pay to keep him as your 3rd or 4th big considering half the forum doesn't even want him in the game longer than five minutes? If I know he's not improving, I would prefer a pick over letting him walk.

It would depend on the pick involved. A first rounder I would seriously consider. If it's a second rounder, you say no thanks because Hickson's value is more than that. Everybody's stock has dropped once they put on a Kings uniform. I mean look at what happened to Hayes. He was highly touted in Houston as the player who does the dirty work, a guy that every team needs. Put him on the Kings and ask yourself is he the player Rocket fans hated see leaving? Also, what the more likely scenario...a player finds his old self after averaging 14 and 9 in the previous season or a 2nd round pick having any positive effect on the team.

 

[The Hammer]

It would depend on the pick involved. A first rounder I would seriously consider. If it's a second rounder, you say no thanks because Hickson's value is more than that. Everybody's stock has dropped once they put on a Kings uniform. I mean look at what happened to Hayes. He was highly touted in Houston as the player who does the dirty work, a guy that every team needs. Put him on the Kings and ask yourself is he the player Rocket fans hated see leaving? Also, what the more likely scenario...a player finds his old self after averaging 14 and 9 in the previous season or a 2nd round pick having any positive effect on the team.

A lot of that has to do with the coaching situation, though. Remember the days when Adelman got incredible value out of what seemed like borderline players? And good players seemed to increase to all-star level? It was all about having the authority of an established system and players knowing their role withing that, and trusting their teammates. Then, we trade a guy out of that system, and he disappears... remember what happened to Christie once we traded him? Niether do I. He was basically all defensive NBA a year and a half before we dumped him. We dump him and he's not even a rotation player for the next team he's on. I miss Adelman. Just imagine if the Maloofs hadn't ****ed that up. We could have had our very own Sloan/Poppovich like coaching institution. Waaahh.

p.s. and I'm pretty confident Hickson would be something like a double figure rebounder off the bench for us if we had Rick. Maybe like a rich black man's Pollard.

 

[Bricklayer]

Hickson is the kind of role player this team need if he can develop properly. A PF who can rebound at a good rate, doesn't command the ball, hustles, and can run the break. I know we have Thompson, but Hickson has a much higher ceiling.

I don't know what player you just described, but its not JJ Hickson. Its what we have wanted JJ Hickson to do of course, but then again that's likely why he has struggled so badly. He's better than this. But he's only better than this when he gets to play his comfortable role.

JJ Hickson is a player who NEEDS the ball/shots. That's his whole reason for being out there. He has shown flashes of borrding ability depnding on interest. No defensive abilty. Not a passer. And gets uncomfortable if he doesn't get touches. That was why it was always a questionable fit next to Cousins. Only way it worked/made sense is if his strong finish last season ws a precursor to him blowing up ala what Thornton did for us. But he didn't, and he's strugled mightily begin asked to play the roleplayer. He's one of those guys that you just do not put around a young Cousins/Reke/Thornton core. He, Salmons, Jimmer (yes, I know) etc. We say we want to be OKC. Who deos OKC have around its core 3? Ibaka, Perkins, Collison, Sefalosha. Defense, reboudning, etc. Not a guy who needs the ball amongst them.

 

[Prince_XY]

He's one of those guys that you just do not put around a young Cousins/Reke/Thornton core. He, Salmons, Jimmer (yes, I know) etc. We say we want to be OKC. Who deos OKC have around its core 3? Ibaka, Perkins, Collison, Sefalosha. Defense, reboudning, etc. Not a guy who needs the ball amongst them.

Good. Not the same way with how the the Kings had played with their 3-core though.

We have 3 guys (Cousins, Evans, and Thornton) who we want the ball on their hands. I think we should make clear to Thornton that he should still be playing a support role to Cousins and Evans and not as co-equal, because he messes up the rhythm of our main two guys once he acts as if he is one of the main guys. OKC has Durant and Westbrook with Harden playing the support role. Even Miami's 3-superstar core had one man (Bosh) playing the support role to the other two (Lebron and Wade).

And to complicate matters more, now we have IT trying to be one of the 2 main guys. Hickson tried it himself too. And Salmons won't even play his best when he don't get to be one of the two main guys.

 

[rainmaker]

Good. Not the same way with how the the Kings had played with their 3-core though.

We have 3 guys (Cousins, Evans, and Thornton) who we want the ball on their hands. I think we should make clear to Thornton that he should still be playing a support role to Cousins and Evans and not as co-equal, because he messes up the rhythm of our main two guys once he acts as if he is one of the main guys. OKC has Durant and Westbrook with Harden playing the support role. Even Miami's 3-superstar core had one man (Bosh) playing the support role to the other two (Lebron and Wade).

And to complicate matters more, now we have IT trying to be one of the 2 main guys. Hickson tried it himself too. And Salmons won't even play his best when he don't get to be one of the two main guys.

Harden can be a good example with the dynamic he has with Durant/Westbrook even though his and MT's games are completely different. Harden has AS talent and is good enough to start at the 3 for just about every team in the league, and excel.

But, he can't be aggressive and play his game with Westbrook and Durant on the floor at the same time. He needs to be aggressive, and so do they, and you know what Brooks realized? There's on freakin ball. Hence, super sub. Start Harden, who is an NBA starter talent wise, and it negates either his effectiveness as he has to be much more passive, or it negates some of what Durant/Westbrook bring to the table.

There's one ball, which is barely enough for Durant/Westbrook at times, surrounded by def role players. But throw Harden in the starting lineup and it gets worse. Brooks realized this. Start Durant/Westbrook and let them be aggressive and surround them with guys not competing for shots. Bring Harden off the bench, he stays out there while Durant/Westbrook take turns resting, he can be aggressive, and he's not fighting for shots with either.

Then look at our set up.....

 

[Kingster]

He also said he's looking for answers as to why our defense sucks, without commenting on lineups or small ball.

Also said he will not field calls on Smart since coaching obviously isn't the problem. Said Sloan wouldn't be any better. Pretty clear while he understands the x's and o's of the NFL, he's quite clueless about the NBA. Said our team beat LAL, SA and OKC with this roster, so coaching isn't the problem. Forgot to mention the lineups and sub patterns were completely different.

Obviously our roster is a huge issue, but so is how our coach is using the pieces we do have, as in playing away from their strengths. If lineups and coaches don't matter, then someone explain something such as Durant playing SG under PJ and the team being terrible, and then moving Durant to SF and bringing in Brooks turned everything around?

Yep, that's Napear BS. He just can't comment for political reasons.

 

[Kingster]

Harden can be a good example with the dynamic he has with Durant/Westbrook even though his and MT's games are completely different. Harden has AS talent and is good enough to start at the 3 for just about every team in the league, and excel.

But, he can't be aggressive and play his game with Westbrook and Durant on the floor at the same time. He needs to be aggressive, and so do they, and you know what Brooks realized? There's on freakin ball. Hence, super sub. Start Harden, who is an NBA starter talent wise, and it negates either his effectiveness as he has to be much more passive, or it negates some of what Durant/Westbrook bring to the table.

There's one ball, which is barely enough for Durant/Westbrook at times, surrounded by def role players. But throw Harden in the starting lineup and it gets worse. Brooks realized this. Start Durant/Westbrook and let them be aggressive and surround them with guys not competing for shots. Bring Harden off the bench, he stays out there while Durant/Westbrook take turns resting, he can be aggressive, and he's not fighting for shots with either.

Then look at our set up.....

It's not quite the same because those OKC guys can shoot and Tyreke can't. I don't want Tyreke to take a ton of shots. I want him to be very discriminating in his shot selection. ELIMINATE his 3 point shooting and don't force the drives. Occassionally take the open 18 footer if he's totally wide open.

 

[ParniValjak]

Harden can be a good example with the dynamic he has with Durant/Westbrook even though his and MT's games are completely different. Harden has AS talent and is good enough to start at the 3 for just about every team in the league, and excel.

But, he can't be aggressive and play his game with Westbrook and Durant on the floor at the same time. He needs to be aggressive, and so do they, and you know what Brooks realized? There's on freakin ball. Hence, super sub. Start Harden, who is an NBA starter talent wise, and it negates either his effectiveness as he has to be much more passive, or it negates some of what Durant/Westbrook bring to the table.

There's one ball, which is barely enough for Durant/Westbrook at times, surrounded by def role players. But throw Harden in the starting lineup and it gets worse. Brooks realized this. Start Durant/Westbrook and let them be aggressive and surround them with guys not competing for shots. Bring Harden off the bench, he stays out there while Durant/Westbrook take turns resting, he can be aggressive, and he's not fighting for shots with either.

Then look at our set up.....

All of our 3 start and play major minutes and it gets to "its my turn now so no one gets it back" and in Thornton's case it's often the case of "my shot it not falling but I need to get my 20 so screw you guys you ain't getting it back!"