So what is the problem with the Kings this year?

#31
I'm honestly baffled that people want Westphal to bear the brunt of the blame for our losing given our roster.
I'm not surprised that there are some people thinking that, as there's always people calling for the coaches head, even on good teams. I am surprised at the near unanimous opinion among fans that Westphal is the main problem with the team, though. I just don't see how so many people can believe that a coach can single handedly make an entire roster suck, choke, and underachieve.
 
#32
I'm not surprised that there are some people thinking that, as there's always people calling for the coaches head, even on good teams. I am surprised at the near unanimous opinion among fans that Westphal is the main problem with the team, though. I just don't see how so many people can believe that a coach can single handedly make an entire roster suck, choke, and underachieve.
Easy, give me the Lakers for a season and I'll show you how to turn them into a lottery team...
 
#34
Simple, here's some ideas:

1. Insert Luke Walton into the starting lineup.
2. Take Pau in and out every 3 minutes.
3. Run a different lineup every game, and mix the rotations in a way that no 5 players get consistent time of playing with each other.
4. Have DFish guard the opposing team's best player and not bring any help.
5. Have Kobe dribble down the clock and everyone else camp out by the 3pt arc waiting to see what he will do.

That's just a few ideas. I could put together a whole list of "How to turn the Lakers into a lottery team" but I think you get the idea.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#35
I'm not surprised that there are some people thinking that, as there's always people calling for the coaches head, even on good teams. I am surprised at the near unanimous opinion among fans that Westphal is the main problem with the team, though. I just don't see how so many people can believe that a coach can single handedly make an entire roster suck, choke, and underachieve.
It has happened time and again in the league -- the coach is the one great constant. When everybody underacheives at once, that's the first place to look. And they are all underacheiving. Virtually every single vet on the team is down from hsi career numbers, and even down from his numbers last year. Given the choice of a) all 12 ofthe players have individually regressed at the same time; or b) or 1 coach isn't getting the most out of them, the first position isn't a tenable option.

Two eyars ago the Oklahoma City Thudner had a veteran coach, who some around here wanted to hire but I always tagged as a loser who lost his teams. They started the season absolutely awfully with guys playing out of position, no cohesiveness or team identity, and no belief in their coach. They canned him and hired Scott Brooks (who ironically we could have had, and who I must admit I did not want us to hire several years ago as a former Musselman assistant). Within the space of amonth all of the malaise got swept away and the team gathered momentum and began winign game at a steady clip, setting up their 50 win season last year. It was the same players, but just finally got the right coach. The coach can make everybody better or everybody worse. You put Eric Musselman in charge of the Lakers last year, and they do not win the championship. And sometimes its not even about somebody being a "bad coach" so much as it is somebody being the wrong coach for a particular team.
 
#36
Simple, here's some ideas:

1. Insert Luke Walton into the starting lineup.
2. Take Pau in and out every 3 minutes.
3. Run a different lineup every game, and mix the rotations in a way that no 5 players get consistent time of playing with each other.
4. Have DFish guard the opposing team's best player and not bring any help.
5. Have Kobe dribble down the clock and everyone else camp out by the 3pt arc waiting to see what he will do.

That's just a few ideas. I could put together a whole list of "How to turn the Lakers into a lottery team" but I think you get the idea.
Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Gasol on the roster that he'd be taking him in and out every three minutes? Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Kobe, Artest, Odom, Fisher, and Gasol that he'd be playing juggle the roster every game? Come on now, think about what you're saying.
 
#37
Virtually every single vet on the team is down from hsi career numbers, and even down from his numbers last year.
So what, Is Westphal making guys like Landry, Dalembert, and Garcia miss their open shots?

Two eyars ago the Oklahoma City Thudner had a veteran coach, who some around here wanted to hire but I always tagged as a loser who lost his teams. They started the season absolutely awfully with guys playing out of position, no cohesiveness or team identity, and no belief in their coach. They canned him and hired Scott Brooks (who ironically we could have had, and who I must admit I did not want us to hire several years ago as a former Musselman assistant). Within the space of amonth all of the malaise got swept away and the team gathered momentum and began winign game at a steady clip, setting up their 50 win season last year. It was the same players, but just finally got the right coach. The coach can make everybody better or everybody worse. You put Eric Musselman in charge of the Lakers last year, and they do not win the championship. And sometimes its not even about somebody being a "bad coach" so much as it is somebody being the wrong coach for a particular team.
I'm not that familiar with the OKC situation so I can't really comment on it. I will point out though that there is no "one size fits all" solutions in the NBA. Even if the coach was the problem with OKC, that doesn't prove that Westphal is the Kings' problem.
 
Last edited:
#38
Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Gasol on the roster that he'd be taking him in and out every three minutes? Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Kobe, Artest, Odom, Fisher, and Gasol that he'd be playing juggle the roster every game? Come on now, think about what you're saying.
Even if you had Mickey Mouse and Michael J Fox on your roster, whoever is playing needs time to play together with each other on a consistent basis. Basketball is a team sport and you can't develop team chemistry if you don't play with the sme teammates enough time to develop a mutual understanding of each others' games and knowledge of what you can expect them to do on the court. That is much more important than randomly inserting a player who might have an outside chance of hitting a couple of more shots than the one you're taking out.
 
#39
Even if you had Mickey Mouse and Michael J Fox on your roster, whoever is playing needs time to play together with each other on a consistent basis. Basketball is a team sport and you can't develop team chemistry if you don't play with the sme teammates enough time to develop a mutual understanding of each others' games and knowledge of what you can expect them to do on the court. That is much more important than randomly inserting a player who might have an outside chance of hitting a couple of more shots than the one you're taking out.
I hear what you're saying and to an extent, I agree. I'm not fan of Westphal's changing lineups. I just don't think they're responsible for how bad this team is. I can also see the problem Westphal is facing and why it leads to those changing lineups. He has a roster full of mediocre vets and highly inconsistent younger players. There is no 5 obvious players you could point to and say OK, there's your starters. I started a thread awhile a back asking folks who they think should be The Kings' starting 5 and nearly everyone had a different lineup. The only constant was Tyreke.
 
#40
So what, Is Westphal making guys like Landry, Dalembert, and Garcia miss their open shots?
Again, in a way, yes. It's a coach's job to put his players in a position to succeed. There are different types of open shots. There are open shots where the ball randomply made it to the players' hands with a couple of seconds left on the clock in a spot where the player is not used to shooting from, and there are open shots where there was a play designed for that player to get the ball in a specific spot in rhythm with enough time left on the clock to be able to make a good decision on whether to shoot or not. Naturally, the latter kind will be a much higher percentage shot. Unfortunately, PW isn't that high on designing plays. His offensive scheme is summed up by "let's try to make some buckets". So, yes, by not designing plays for them to get high percentage type shots, he is missing these open shots for them.

I'm not that familiar with the OKC situation so I can't really comment on it. I will point out though that there is no "one size fits all" solutions in the NBA. Even if the coach was the problem with OKC, that doesn't prove that Westphal is the Kings' problem.
Again, I don't know what kind of proof you are looking for. I don't think there is a chemistry lab you can stick all the players and the coach in to get a numerical proof, but seeing that every single player on the roster is doing much worse under this coach than any other coach they have played for is proof in terms of basketball.
 
#41
I hear what you're saying and to an extent, I agree. I'm not fan of Westphal's changing lineups. I just don't think they're responsible for how bad this team is. I can also see the problem Westphal is facing and why it leads to those changing lineups. He has a roster full of mediocre vets and highly inconsistent younger players. There is no 5 obvious players you could point to and say OK, there's your starters. I started a thread awhile a back asking folks who they think should be The Kings' starting 5 and nearly everyone had a different lineup. The only constant was Tyreke.
But that's exactly the the difference between the coach and a random observer. We, as fans, can have different opinions as to who should start. A coach can't have that luxury. It is his JOB to make those decision, and it is his JOB to bring out the best from those decision after he made them. Experimenting with different lineups is for summer league and preseason. By the time he gets to the real games he HAS to settle on something and start developing the team as a TEAM, and not just as a bunch of randomly selected players thrown into the games at random times with random plays. Saying "it's hard to decide" is not an excuse for a coach. It can be an excuse for a fan message board, but the reason PW is getting paid $2mil a year is precisely to make those decisions and build something upon those decisions.
 
#42
Health
Lack of shooting
Inexperience
Instability
Inconsistency
Defensive rotations
Stagnant Offense
Slow getting into an offensive set
Rebounding? HOW OH HOW has this even been an issue?
Limited number of players with the ability to create their own shot/or for others(Tyreke, Beno are about it)
Coaching? Maybe? Only because of the inconsistent rotations.

The two biggies to me are inexperience and a lack of SHOOTERS.
 
#43
PW isn't that high on designing plays. His offensive scheme is summed up by "let's try to make some buckets". So, yes, by not designing plays for them to get high percentage type shots, he is missing these open shots for them.
I don't think that's true. They often run plays very well in the first half. I've read more than one Kings' player say that once the other team starts making a run that guys just stop running plays. If that's the case, you can't put it on the coach.
 
#44
I don't think that's true. They often run plays very well in the first half. I've read more than one Kings' player say that once the other team starts making a run that guys just stop running plays. If that's the case, you can't put it on the coach.
Again, if it's across the board, then it is on the coach. Part of the problem is Westphal's double-standards in allowing some players to ignore their teammates and just do their thing, while other players get jerked around for making a couple of mistakes.

Another problem is that the play bank is so poor, that once the other team makes adjustments, we have absolutely no answers, and you see that every single game this season.
 
#45
But that's exactly the the difference between the coach and a random observer. We, as fans, can have different opinions as to who should start.
That wasn't really the point. The point was that if you did a similar survey about who should start on The Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Heat, Spurs, Jazz, Mavericks, Bulls, etc. you'd have a lot more agreement. I actually had similar thoughts about Westphal up until maybe about two weeks ago but the more I've watched this team choke, suck, get blown out, make bonehead plays, blow leads, jack up bad shots, etc. the less I can blame the coach. Not to mention, if Westphal had started say Cousins, Evans, Greene, Thompson, and Beno, and 15 games into the season they were 3 and 12, a pretty much guarantee that everyone would be demanding he change the starting lineup.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#47
I'm not surprised that there are some people thinking that, as there's always people calling for the coaches head, even on good teams. I am surprised at the near unanimous opinion among fans that Westphal is the main problem with the team, though. I just don't see how so many people can believe that a coach can single handedly make an entire roster suck, choke, and underachieve.
Actually mi amigo, a head coach is probably the only one on the team that can do that. He has the ability to make everyone look bad. Just what the hell does everyone think a head coaches job is? There's a reason the good ones get paid a lot of money and the bad ones are eventually coaching highschool.

The main problem with this team, Evans injury aside, is youth and inexperience. You want to find most of the youngest teams in the NBA? Just look at the bottom of the standings. The talent level is what it is, and its the coaches job to make it into something that resembles a team. I have nothing against Westphal personally. I just don't see much change from last year. Yes! We have new players on the team. And yes, the coaching staff has to find a way to put them on the floor in a way that they"re most efficient.

Were I the head coach I would have started where I left off last year. Evans, Beno, Casspi, Thompson, and Greene were all used to playing together. Landry to some extent due to his late arrival. The only missing piece was Hawes. So I would have started Cousins, Thompson, Greene or Casspi, Beno and Evans. I would have done it in training camp and right from the beginning of the season. And I would have taken my lumps with that lineup. Let them build some chemistry. Get used to playing with one another. Are there some holes in that lineup? Sure! Beno probably isn't great starting material. But he's the best we have at the moment. Casspi or Greene? Maybe! Its too early to tell, but the clock is running on Greene. Thompson? I'd say yes, with the right players around him. I doubt he'll ever be much more than the third option, maybe the fourth. But he plays defense and rebounds. Evans and Cousins? Yes!

Would a very good veteran player help. Damm right! Especially one that could hold the other players accountable while on the floor. I'm hopefull that will happen in the offseason. So I agree that there are areas that need upgrading. But we knew that going into the season. The fact that we look bad at times isn't surprising. But how often we look bad is. The fact that this team can stay with a good team for three quarters, and for the most part, outplay the other, more talented team for 70% of the game, shows that we have talent on our team. Very inconsistent talent. Fold under pressure talent. Thats where the inexperience comes in.

Contrary to someones post, I doubt anyone expected Cousins to be instant Shaq. Or Evans jumpshot to be picture perfect. If you did you were living in La La land. But I did expect the team to be improved. Cousins is better than Hawes. I haven't seen any dramatic improvement in Greene, but he's playing no worse than last year. I think Casspi's defense has improved, contrary to what some of you might think. He's also sharing the ball better. Beno is, well, Beno. Fairly consistent, but nothing special in the grand scheme of things.

I think Westphal would be a good coach on an experienced team. He's considered a players coach. What that usually means is that he lets the players play and sort of figure things out for themselves as the game goes on. Adelman was the same type of coach. Adelman didn't like rookie players because you can't let young players figure it out for themselves. So young players didn't fit well into his style of coaching. Young players need more guidance. A stronger hand during the game. And that doesn't mean just bench them when they start playing badly. It means jerk them from the game. Sit them down and explain to them what they're doing wrong. Let them sit for a minute to absorb, and then send them back into the game. And you repeat that process until they elliminate their mistakes.

I suspose you could call it babysitting. And this is the NBA for gods sake, and you shouldn't have to do that. But with young players you do. Cousins is one year removed from highschool. So is Whiteside. Evans is two years removed. These are kids and were expecting them to act like mature adults. Have you ever seen much of anything from Donte Greene that justs screams mature adult? Its not as much about the talent as it is maturity and experience. And leadership!!! That right now has to come from the head coach..
 
#48
So I would have started Cousins, Thompson, Greene or Casspi, Beno and Evans. I would have done it in training camp and right from the beginning of the season. And I would have taken my lumps with that lineup.
That's probably exactly what i would have done, only with Casspi instead of Greene. But if I did that, and 30 games into the season, I was 7 and 23, I guarantee people would be calling for my head and demanding to know why I didn't change the lineup.
 
#49
That's probably exactly what i would have done, only with Casspi instead of Greene. But if I did that, and 30 games into the season, I was 7 and 23, I guarantee people would be calling for my head and demanding to know why I didn't change the lineup.
You could also say that if you spent big bucks on vets and still get 7-23 people would be calling for your head. Anything you do has a chance to fail as well as succeed, but statistically, teams with a consistent lineup are FAR better than teams that constantly switch lineups with similar talent levels. That's a no-brainer.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#50
Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Gasol on the roster that he'd be taking him in and out every three minutes? Do you honestly think that if Westphal had Kobe, Artest, Odom, Fisher, and Gasol that he'd be playing juggle the roster every game? Come on now, think about what you're saying.

Your missing his point. He's talking about a coach having consistent lineups and rotations. Not just jerking players around to the point where no one knows what their role is. If you start the game and your playiing well and then your substituted for, and you never get back into the game, while at the same time your replacement is playing badly, whats going through your mind sitting there. Does that build trust in your coach. You've just done everything the coaching staff has asked you to do, and your reward is that you get to sit on the bench and watch. Hows that for great incentive to bust your butt next time? Or to listen to your coach next time?

I've seen this happen on the team this year. I've seen it happen to Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Casspi. This eventually is a formula for, "eveyman for himself". As a coach you can play favorites when the players are named Jordan, Kobe, or Nash etc. But I haven't seen anyone with those names on this team just yet.
 
#51
Your missing his point. He's talking about a coach having consistent lineups and rotations. .
No, I got that. My point is that it's MUCH easier to have consistent rotations and lineups when you have about 6 or 7 very good players on your team. Not so easy when you have a roster full of guys why probably couldn't start as the 5th option on a contender. Having said that, I do think that Westphal's rotations/lineups are part of the problem. I just don't think they're the whole problem, or even the biggest problem the way many seem to.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#52
So what, Is Westphal making guys like Landry, Dalembert, and Garcia miss their open shots?

I'm not that familiar with the OKC situation so I can't really comment on it. I will point out though that there is no "one size fits all" solutions in the NBA. Even if the coach was the problem with OKC, that doesn't prove that Westphal is the Kings' problem.
So if you had to choose between all the players just being bad, or the head coach being bad, your going to pick the players. Especially when even the veteran players are playing below their career averages. You fail to see a common denominator in this equation. All the playes stink, but the coach is fine. We should just get rid of all the players and keep Westphal? Sorry, I'm not following the logic.

How come the Lakers had both Kobe and Shaq and couldn't win a championship until Jackson came along. It couldn't have been the coach, could it?
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#53
That's probably exactly what i would have done, only with Casspi instead of Greene. But if I did that, and 30 games into the season, I was 7 and 23, I guarantee people would be calling for my head and demanding to know why I didn't change the lineup.
I can't speak for everyone else. But for me, if I saw progress in how they played. If I saw individual improvement, I would be fine with the rest of the results. I didn't expect to make the playoffs this year. I predicted between 30 and 35 wins. And I knew that was a little wishful thinking on my part. Everything would have to go just right. But not out of the question. I think anyone that really understood basketball would be Ok with lesser results than expected if they saw something that was starting to resemble the future. I'm not an instant gratification guy. But I do need to see progress. If I don't, I don't blame the class, I blame the teacher.
 
#54
So if you had to choose between all the players just being bad, or the head coach being bad, your going to pick the players.
I’d say it’s more likely that 12 players are just choking and making the coach look bad than it is that the coach is making 12 players choke, yes.

You fail to see a common denominator in this equation. All the playes stink, but the coach is fine. We should just get rid of all the players and keep Westphal? Sorry, I'm not following the logic.
First off, I never said they should get rid of every player or that Westphal was fine. No need for strawman arguments here. I see the common denominator, I just don’t agree that blame for it rests solely with the coach.

How come the Lakers had both Kobe and Shaq and couldn't win a championship until Jackson came along. It couldn't have been the coach, could it?
How come after Shaq left, Phil Jackson couldn’t get out of the first round until they added Gasol to the roster? It couldn’t have been Gasol could it? Works both ways.
 
#55
I can't speak for everyone else. But for me, if I saw progress in how they played. If I saw individual improvement, I would be fine with the rest of the results. I didn't expect to make the playoffs this year. I predicted between 30 and 35 wins. And I knew that was a little wishful thinking on my part. Everything would have to go just right. But not out of the question. I think anyone that really understood basketball would be Ok with lesser results than expected if they saw something that was starting to resemble the future. I'm not an instant gratification guy. But I do need to see progress. If I don't, I don't blame the class, I blame the teacher.
I'd say there'e been a little progress over the last 5 games or so in comparison to the 10 or so games before that. Not in terms of wins, but in terms of playing well even in losses. They played great against Dallas, they played very well in the second Clippers game, they played great against the Wizards, and they play good against the Hornets for 3 quarters.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#56
No, I got that. My point is that it's MUCH easier to have consistent rotations and lineups when you have about 6 or 7 very good players on your team. Not so easy when you have a roster full of guys why probably couldn't start as the 5th option on a contender. Having said that, I do think that Westphal's rotations/lineups are part of the problem. I just don't think they're the whole problem, or even the biggest problem the way many seem to.
I certainly agree with you that picking the starting lineup for the Lakers or the Celtics is far easier than picking one for the current Kings. But you basicly came to the same conclusion about who should start as I did. And for the most part, thats the starting lineup Westphal has currently ended up with. You and I figured this out from the get go. So what the hell took him so long? To my mind, it was just logical. Just take the players from last year that have played together the most and create a starting lineup from that group.

Go back and dig through some of the old Seattle newspapers when Westphal was the coach up there. He did similar things and lost the team. Payton basicly hated him, and did everything he could to get Westphal fired. Not that Payton was an angel. But he was the best player on the team at the time. You lose your best player, and you lose the team. Maybe in Westphal's case, that was a bad lesson to learn.
 
#57
I certainly agree with you that picking the starting lineup for the Lakers or the Celtics is far easier than picking one for the current Kings. But you basicly came to the same conclusion about who should start as I did. And for the most part, thats the starting lineup Westphal has currently ended up with. You and I figured this out from the get go. So what the hell took him so long? To my mind, it was just logical. Just take the players from last year that have played together the most and create a starting lineup from that group.

Go back and dig through some of the old Seattle newspapers when Westphal was the coach up there. He did similar things and lost the team. Payton basicly hated him, and did everything he could to get Westphal fired. Not that Payton was an angel. But he was the best player on the team at the time. You lose your best player, and you lose the team. Maybe in Westphal's case, that was a bad lesson to learn.
I think Westphal got suckered into believing that playing the vets would get more wins. And given the inconsistency of most of the young guys, I can see how that would happen.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#60
Again, in a way, yes. It's a coach's job to put his players in a position to succeed. There are different types of open shots. There are open shots where the ball randomply made it to the players' hands with a couple of seconds left on the clock in a spot where the player is not used to shooting from, and there are open shots where there was a play designed for that player to get the ball in a specific spot in rhythm with enough time left on the clock to be able to make a good decision on whether to shoot or not. Naturally, the latter kind will be a much higher percentage shot. Unfortunately, PW isn't that high on designing plays. His offensive scheme is summed up by "let's try to make some buckets". So, yes, by not designing plays for them to get high percentage type shots, he is missing these open shots for them.



Again, I don't know what kind of proof you are looking for. I don't think there is a chemistry lab you can stick all the players and the coach in to get a numerical proof, but seeing that every single player on the roster is doing much worse under this coach than any other coach they have played for is proof in terms of basketball.
I remember Larry Bird talking about how he played defense. He said he watched a lot of film on who he would be guarding and figured out where his favorite spots on the floor were, and tried to deny him those spots. To make the other player unconfortable and force him shoot from somewhere else. My point is just to validate what you were saying. Players are generally more effective when shooting from their favorite spot on the floor. In general its up to the coaching staff to design and practice plays to accomplish that. And its up to the point guard to get the ball to said player at the right time.

Ultimately, it comes down to execution and timing. Every play has a brief moment of being open. And every play should have an alternate option off of it. In other words, if a team reads the play and moves defensively to foil that play, then they're giving up something somewhere else. So its up to the players on the floor to exploit what the other team gives up.

Once again were back to experience, and chemistry. Which takes time. It also requires the coaching staff to come up with the type of plays that lend themselves toward the strengths of the starting lineup. Here's what I don't understand. Playes take time to run. The first option isn't always going to be there. The other teams do scouting you know. Although I have to admit that scouting the Kings must be a puzzling process. I certainly don't know what their going to run on a regualr basis. But anyway. Since plays take time to run, and Westphal has said on more than one occasion, that we need to get the ball up the floor sooner and get into our offense sooner, why then does he tolorate Tyreke walking the ball up the floor?

Is he so attached at the hip, that he's afraid to sit Tyreke down for a minute and explain to him that walking the ball up the floor is unacceptable? You can't tolerate mistakes by one player, and punish those of another player. You can't continue to give major minutes of your favorite players when their not playing well at the expense of minutes of a player that was playing well. If Landry comes into the game and is lights out, then I'm fine with him getting extra minutes. But when he's not playing well, sit him down for while and try him again later. But don't just leave him out there hoping he'll get hot eventually.