The Kings are a Deep Team

P

ppine

Starter
It is not unusual for the Kings to play 12 guys a game. Many different players have started. Their evolving style seems to be pretty fast with pressing defense and running the break, especially in the 4th quarter. It takes lots of energy to play with intensity.

The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
 
ppine said:
It is not unusual for the Kings to play 12 guys a game. Many different players have started. Their evolving style seems to be pretty fast with pressing defense and running the break, especially in the 4th quarter. It takes lots of energy to play with intensity.

The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

My thoughts are ... we are not a deep team. Don't let the Thunder game fool you. We got away with a LOT of fouls as the refs were just letting the guys play. Westbrook and Ibaka got hacked multiple times, no call. Still, I agree that the team plays with intensity and energy for the most part... but the reality is that all playoff teams do as well, and they've got much better talent than we do. What we should takeaway is that our coach is the best one we've had in a while and we've got a budding star. The foundation is built, which is arguably the most difficult thing to do. Now it's all on the FO to surround Cousins with good players
 
ppine said:
It is not unusual for the Kings to play 12 guys a game. Many different players have started. Their evolving style seems to be pretty fast with pressing defense and running the break, especially in the 4th quarter. It takes lots of energy to play with intensity.

The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

It would be more correct to say the Kings are a deeply mediocre team. With only one elite talent we have a whole stack of largely interchangeable parts in the low starter down through mid-bench regions. But yes, that has been known for a while. That was how Petrie always liked to roll, and then the new front office came in and doubled down on it when they picked up Landry to duplicate JT and PPat. Now we have three 3rd bigs, two maybe they could be a third weapon, or a fourth weapon or...but they're not at this point SGs, two lower tier PGs flawed in their own ways, and now one Derrick Williams to be the cherry on top. But if you take Cousins out of the equation not a single member of all our "depth" would start for Golden State just down the road. So as I say, we are deeply mediocre. We've got a stack of guys who are the 4th/5th to 9th best guys on good teams. Has to make it tough to coach, because those sorts of guys are notoriously guys you can't rely on night to night. One night they'll give you 15, the next 5. And you never know who is going to spark when.
 
funny-gif-Steve-Carell-laughing.gif


We have exactly 2 consistent contributors, an All-Star center and an elite sixth man. Thats it. After that its a load of question marks.

We have two prospects in McLemore and Williams who could become long-term starters.

We have an injured bench scoring big (Landry) who may or may not mesh well with our franchise big man.

And then we have a bunch of riffraff you can’t count on from game to game. Ideally, these would be 9th-10th men on a roster. Unfortunately we’re stuck playing Thornton, Salmons, Patterson, Hayes and JT major minutes as starters and contributors.

So to sum up:

????/IT
(McLemore?)/????
(Williams?)/????
????/(Landry?)
Cousins/????

We have a long way to go to rebuild this roster. Main needs are a defensive starting PG, a defensive-minded big at PF, and a defensive 2/3 bench roleplayer. Then you at least have an 8 man rotation you can spot minutes for in the regular season with our collection of riffraff.
 
Last edited:
KingaholicTE13 said:
There's a difference between being deep and being mediocre at all positions (except one)! The Kings are a group of mediocre players... I wouldn't call that "deep".
Click to expand...

indeed. the kings are the wrong kind of "deep." i'd rather have a tight 8-man rotation that features some outstanding talent than a loose 10-12 man rotation that features a whole lotta mediocrity...
 
Kings are nowhere near as deep as LA Clips, San Antonio, Portland, probably few other teams in WC. They do seem to get for most part solid effort out of their "deep roster" - at home. But they're still 4-12 even with all their early home games. Once that performs "OK" in front of home crowd Kings team gets out on the road it could look like totally different crew struggling to survive overall mediocrity on enemy territory.
 
ppine said:
It is not unusual for the Kings to play 12 guys a game. Many different players have started. Their evolving style seems to be pretty fast with pressing defense and running the break, especially in the 4th quarter. It takes lots of energy to play with intensity.

The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
By this definition, Phoenix is deep as well, and btw competitive without Bledsoe, their best player.

When MT was stinking it up, Salmons was playing like a 40 yr old, Chuck was a non-factor, Vasquez's most memorable moments were getting blown by consistently on defense, IT wasn't going off like he does every once in a while for 20 pts in a quarter, etc, no one would have claimed this team was deep, and that was all of about a week ago.

We've still lost 5 straight.

Last night was a good game but let's not make it into something it's not. We have 2-4 players who likely have a future with us in Cuz/MLM and possibly IT depending on contract negotiations this coming summer, and the jury is still out on Williams. Everyone else is up in the air. Everyone else has had consistency issues. No else is even in the argument as a possible NBA starter quality player.

And actually, Malone rarely plays more than a 10 man rotation. Two deep across the board.

Our FO still has a lot of work to do.
 
I agree that the Kings could desperately use two more starters, it would help in the win column. I am surprised that fans of the team can't see the competitiveness through the tenth man coming off the bench. Rallies that the Kings' put together often come from bench players. On many teams in the NBA that would be unusual. I prefer to focus on what is right about this team some of the time.

One of the things that is right is Malone. He has already changed the level of effort and defensive ability of the Kings. There is a lot more ground to make up. Defensive rebounding is troubling.
 
ppine said:
I agree that the Kings could desperately use two more starters, it would help in the win column. I am surprised that fans of the team can't see the competitiveness through the tenth man coming off the bench. Rallies that the Kings' put together often come from bench players. On many teams in the NBA that would be unusual. I prefer to focus on what is right about this team some of the time.
Click to expand...
When you play eleven, it's because you don't have eight.
 
Citrus,
You have to play with the cards you are dealt.
When a team squanders draft picks like Jimmer and Robinson, and trades players that do fine somewhere else, improving is a slow process. This is no time to get demoralized and hang your head. The Kings continue to improve, largely because of Malone.
 
We have Demarcus Cousins and Coach Malone. That's it. The lack of talent on this team is absurd and that's why this team is 4-12. The whiffs in the 2011 and 2012 drafts have severely derailed the rebuilding efforts that were on its way with homerun selections in 2009 and 2010. Ultimately, its the Maloofs fault that this team wasn't built properly. Now, we have to suffer through another rebuilding period that may last throughout Boogie's 4 year deal. This organization NEEDS to draft a star level rookie this upcoming draft.
 
ppine said:
Citrus,
You have to play with the cards you are dealt.
When a team squanders draft picks like Jimmer and Robinson, and trades players that do fine somewhere else, improving is a slow process.
Click to expand...
To whatever extent that may be true, it still does not support the claim that the Kings are a deep team. We're not.
This is no time to get demoralized and hang your head. The Kings continue to improve, largely because of Malone.
Click to expand...
Who's getting demoralized?
 
ppine said:
It is not unusual for the Kings to play 12 guys a game. Many different players have started. Their evolving style seems to be pretty fast with pressing defense and running the break, especially in the 4th quarter. It takes lots of energy to play with intensity.

The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

In general, when a team plays as many as 12 players, it means that a large majority of the team is mediocre. The fact that we played the Thunder tough last night, while admirable, doesn't mean were deep, or very good. It was just one night against a team that probably came in expecting us to roll over. In the early years, when the Kings were the benchmark for mediocrity, I can't tell you how many games we were in, right up to the 5 minute mark of the 4th quarter. Of course that's when the better team, the other team, turned it up a notch, and walked out with a win.

While I admire your optimism, its not reality.
 
ppine said:
The Kings have shown that they can be competitive without Cousins. These things all lead to the same conclusion that the Kings are deep. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it's interesting that no one addressed this part of the note that was written. I'm not going to respond either as I suspect something absurd is being implied.
 
PurpleHaze said:
Kings are nowhere near as deep as LA Clips, San Antonio, Portland, probably few other teams in WC. They do seem to get for most part solid effort out of their "deep roster" - at home. But they're still 4-12 even with all their early home games. Once that performs "OK" in front of home crowd Kings team gets out on the road it could look like totally different crew struggling to survive overall mediocrity on enemy territory.
Click to expand...
Clips aren't really a "deep" team, w/o CP3 they'd be in the bottom. DeAndre is just a defensive guy, Griffin is just a flopper and w/o Paul he can't get his own shots. Jamal Crawford just the same volume scorer he is.
 
There's not really anything to talk about, boss: so far, this season, we've played one game without Cousins, against a team that has, arguably, the weakest offensive 4/5 tandem in the western conference. And we lost. If we lose against the gd lakers on Friday, and Cousins can't go, I don't know if anyone is going to try to make the case for us being competitive.
 
this thread follows a tight home game against one of the best teams in the western conference. the question is whether we should attribute the kings' ability to hang with OKC last night to a strong team effort and a strong defensive effort, or to an off night by the thunder. i'm inclined to attribute it to the latter. IT's 4th quarter explosion notwithstanding, if durant and westbrook play up to their standard of excellence, the game likely doesn't end up as close as it is...

that said, i don't want to detract too much from the kings' solid play against OKC. they certainly deserve credit for taking advantage of the thunder's struggles, particularly given the absence of demarcus cousins, and that is where we should be directing our positivity... in the moment, so to speak. but it seems silly to extrapolate last night's effort into some kind of larger statement about the competitive nature of this kings roster...
 
I can't recall a single game where all 12 played. Your premise may be off. Malone doesn't play more than 10 on any night. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Deep? Uh, no. :) I won't repeat what others have said. But, no. And really depth is not really that important anyway. Sure, you want 8 deep. But not 12. Unnecessary. And if you have a good 8 or 9, your 10-12 should be god awful cause most of the cap is spent.

Btw, people forget Landry is almost for sure a part of the future. They just signed him to a 4 year deal. He'd certainly be available for the right price, but as of now, he's gotta be considered a part of the next couple years at least.

I think these last ditch comebacks may be leading people to think we "competed" with these good teams. No, we lost. They got up big, got bored, let IT go nuts (why teams don't double him and make everyone else shoot is a strange thing, since he's the only bench player that really can hurt you), then when the game is on the line, they buckle down and get the W. Happens every night in the NBA. Hey, it's enjoyable, but don't start thinking we are one step from greatness (unless that one step is lebron). And this is of course assuming teams like OKC, Clippers, golden state, etc. aren't half asleep the whole game when they play us. We are not exactly the team these guys get up for. We are the doormat. Bad teams compete with lazy good teams every night in this league. They still rarely win. It's a harsh reality, but it's the truth. The fact we are consistently rallying means we are consistently down big. Not good.

To,whoever said we are competitive without cousins, huh? After one game, which we lost? Sure.
 
Chubbs said:
I can't recall a single game where all 12 played. Your premise may be off. Malone doesn't play more than 10 on any night. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311010SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311020GSW.html (13)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311090SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311130SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311150SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311170SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311190SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311200PHO.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311230LAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311240LAL.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311290SAC.html (11)

You should play closer attention.

Eleven out of sixteen games where 11 guys played. Five times where 12 guys played. And once where he played thirteen. But sure, you "could" be wrong... for differing values of "could."
 
Last edited:
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311010SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311020GSW.html (13)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311090SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311130SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311150SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311170SAC.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311190SAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311200PHO.html (11)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311230LAC.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311240LAL.html (12)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311290SAC.html (11)

You should play closer attention.

Eleven out of sixteen games where 11 guys played. Five times where 12 guys played. And once where he played thirteen. But sure, you "could" be wrong... for differing values of "could."
Click to expand...

(Sigh). Good job. You win the Internet.

Go ahead and explain how that changes anything I said.

You could just private message me next time instead of smearing egg in my face. I'd edit the note. Or is this how you get your kicks?
 
I'll think about it, after you actually read the thread and realize that I agree with you.

I've already made my opinion on the Kings' depth known in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself. I had no reason to acknowledge your post at all, except to address the claim that Malone never goes more than ten deep.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
I'll think about it, after you actually read the thread and realize that I agree with you.

I've already made my opinion on the Kings' depth known in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself. I had no reason to acknowledge your post at all, except to address the claim that Malone never goes more than ten deep.
Click to expand...
Point taken. My bad. The claim was indeed incorrect. Although those disclaimers "I can't recall" and "could be wrong"? Also, 100% true.

Honestly, that was sorta surprising to see how many guys we are playing. That's not a good thing.
 
Chubbs said:
You could just private message me next time instead of smearing egg in my face. I'd edit the note. Or is this how you get your kicks?
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of private messaging. I tend to avoid using them, except for official mod business.
 
We play 12 deep because the players are inconsistent and coach has to search for who is going to play well on any given night. Average to below average players are inconsistent. Good to great players are consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Caccia
What do the individual Kings need to work on this summer?
Replies
11
Views
778
Caccia
Caccia
funkykingston
  • Locked
[Game] Kings @ Jazz 10/29/2024 6:00pm Pacific 9:00pm Eastern
6 7 8
Replies
214
Views
8K
sono
sono
Kingster
Establishing an Identity and a Offensive Style Fitting This Team
Replies
9
Views
974
Kingster
Kingster
King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
1K
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
S
Kings Sharpshooter Labeled as a Trade Target for the 76ers
Replies
0
Views
296
Sacramento Kings On SI
S
Back
Top