I dont see reason why we shouldnt give the minutes to jimmer and thomas http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...struggling-another-season-190155217--nba.html
Thought this was a good article from yahoo sports
- Thread starter Dudeman23
- Start date
It's a good article with a lot of good points. A lot of Kings fans might not like it though because of the hidden message it sends. I think most of them though are hiding out in the "Reke at PG" thread. I think the whole system that was set up at the starting of the year was destined to fail. The coaches wanted Thomas to play as a 5'9 SG and do basically what Beno did for Evans. Bring the ball up then pass it off and play some SG. Of course Thomas failed and people saw his "PG numbers" were down and assume it's because he was failing on the offensive end. But if he was playing SG his stats would have been fine. At one point he was the highest FG% guard on the team and then he got yanked. The whole offense looked pretty bad though so it was partially his fault.
As for Jimmer, I was never really a fan of his, but he has shown that he can be a 3pt threat off the bench, but he has not been able to prove himself because his minutes have been way too inconsistent to get any kind of a flow going.
I don't believe IT should be a starter on a playoff team. He's not good enough, but he is the best playmaker (PG) we have so I felt he should have got more of a chance to show his stuff rather than handing the ball off after dribbling it up court.
Bottom line though is that we have a flawed system, and in this flawed system players (most of them) will get inconsistent minutes and playing time one night and none the next. This is the kind of system where players have no idea what's going on from one day to the next which messes with the morale of the team and causes people to "tweet" things like IT did.
As for Jimmer, I was never really a fan of his, but he has shown that he can be a 3pt threat off the bench, but he has not been able to prove himself because his minutes have been way too inconsistent to get any kind of a flow going.
I don't believe IT should be a starter on a playoff team. He's not good enough, but he is the best playmaker (PG) we have so I felt he should have got more of a chance to show his stuff rather than handing the ball off after dribbling it up court.
Bottom line though is that we have a flawed system, and in this flawed system players (most of them) will get inconsistent minutes and playing time one night and none the next. This is the kind of system where players have no idea what's going on from one day to the next which messes with the morale of the team and causes people to "tweet" things like IT did.
And where would all these minutes come from?
You've got 96 minutes at the guard spots. Assume 34-36 for Evans, 30 for MT, that leaves about 30 minutes to split between brooks, jimmer and IT. Someone needs to be completely out and I don't think IT or jimmer have shown enough this year to push brooks into that role.
And I don't usually mind dwyer's articles but IT has mostly looked really bad this year and nothing like a pass first guard he is claiming.
Kelly Dwyer is a rather notorious idiot. We even had him come on here once and prove it. He's actually hard to read much of the time. This time he's almost writing in coherent sentences, but his point is just ignorant. Actually what he normally does, being friends with Ziller, is choose a particulalry misguided train of thought amongst the lower fanbase and try to run wiht it in mostly uninteresting fashion. So here we go with Brooks and IT again.
WE HAVE BEEN BETTER EVER SINCE AARON BROOKS TOOK OVER.
Get used to it.
I am also amused to hear a guy called a journeyman who once averaged 19.7ppg in this league while starting for a playoff team. As opposed to our... what exactly do you call two midget draft picks on a lottery squad? Scrubs? Well I guess one of them started about half the games one season, leading his team to win nearly 1/3 of their games, so All Star and all that.
You know who IT's politics comment more likely refers to? Jimmer Fredette. Not Aaron Brooks. Its Jimmer who he alternates with off the bench. Its Jimmer who is promoted constantly by the franchise despite the 6-7ppg career scoring average. Its Jimmer the fans all applaud twice as loud as everybody else despite the lack of relevant acheivement. If I am IT and I am resenting something, there is what I am resenting. I beat the guy out last year. Now even when I have a good game, he's back the next. Brooks on the other hand has just been the better starter, and we've been better with him there, at least when we've had our guys out there.
Meanwhile people were told to love Jimmer and IT, so they did. Nobody has told them to love Brooks yet, so they don't. If ever there was any "poltics" to it its exactly the opposite of the ones positied by Dwyer.
WE HAVE BEEN BETTER EVER SINCE AARON BROOKS TOOK OVER.
Get used to it.
I am also amused to hear a guy called a journeyman who once averaged 19.7ppg in this league while starting for a playoff team. As opposed to our... what exactly do you call two midget draft picks on a lottery squad? Scrubs? Well I guess one of them started about half the games one season, leading his team to win nearly 1/3 of their games, so All Star and all that.
You know who IT's politics comment more likely refers to? Jimmer Fredette. Not Aaron Brooks. Its Jimmer who he alternates with off the bench. Its Jimmer who is promoted constantly by the franchise despite the 6-7ppg career scoring average. Its Jimmer the fans all applaud twice as loud as everybody else despite the lack of relevant acheivement. If I am IT and I am resenting something, there is what I am resenting. I beat the guy out last year. Now even when I have a good game, he's back the next. Brooks on the other hand has just been the better starter, and we've been better with him there, at least when we've had our guys out there.
Meanwhile people were told to love Jimmer and IT, so they did. Nobody has told them to love Brooks yet, so they don't. If ever there was any "poltics" to it its exactly the opposite of the ones positied by Dwyer.
Actually, without going into detail, the whole system stinks. If your willing to admit, that were not making the playoffs, then what are we trying to accomplish? Win as many games as we can? To what future end? Are players like Outlaw, Cisco, Salmons, and even Brooks, in our future? Will they be with the team 2 years from now? I suspect mostly not. Then, if were not going to make the playoffs (yes I know we haven't been mathematicly elliminated yet), why are we even playing these guys. I mean, which players are going to be in our future?
What management, and the coaching staff should be trying to do, instead of selling the team as a playoff team, is decide who stays, and who goes in the next two years. And after deciding that, then play the players that you think should stay, and record be dammed. If you think Johnson is our future SF, then start him and see if your right, and if your not, then trade him. If Jimmer and IT are in our future, and Brooks isn't, then play IT and Jimmer, and let Brooks get the crumbs. Or, if you decide that Jimmer's not in the future, then trade him, and sign Brooks to an extension. Or trade all three and start over. But make a dammed decision.
I listened to an interview with the GM of the Thunder, and everything he said made sense, and was dedicated toward the long range plans of the Thunder. I see no such determination by the Kings. Its as though they just throw a bunch of players together and hope for the best. I don't see a long range plan. At worse, and I've been thinking about this for a while, send Jimmer to the D-League where he can play against good competition and get the proper minutes to improve. It accomplishs two things. It gets Jimmer playing time, and it takes options away from Smart. But this whole thing is a mess, and something needs to be done. It bad enough having owners with no money, and a GM who either, his hands are tied, or he's simply has lost his ambition, but to also have a coach with his head up his you know what.
What management, and the coaching staff should be trying to do, instead of selling the team as a playoff team, is decide who stays, and who goes in the next two years. And after deciding that, then play the players that you think should stay, and record be dammed. If you think Johnson is our future SF, then start him and see if your right, and if your not, then trade him. If Jimmer and IT are in our future, and Brooks isn't, then play IT and Jimmer, and let Brooks get the crumbs. Or, if you decide that Jimmer's not in the future, then trade him, and sign Brooks to an extension. Or trade all three and start over. But make a dammed decision.
I listened to an interview with the GM of the Thunder, and everything he said made sense, and was dedicated toward the long range plans of the Thunder. I see no such determination by the Kings. Its as though they just throw a bunch of players together and hope for the best. I don't see a long range plan. At worse, and I've been thinking about this for a while, send Jimmer to the D-League where he can play against good competition and get the proper minutes to improve. It accomplishs two things. It gets Jimmer playing time, and it takes options away from Smart. But this whole thing is a mess, and something needs to be done. It bad enough having owners with no money, and a GM who either, his hands are tied, or he's simply has lost his ambition, but to also have a coach with his head up his you know what.
Better? maybe. Does it matter? nope... 8 games (and 14 games for Brooks) does not make a large enough sample size. Personally if I had it my way neither would start.
I just hope there is something done because whether IT or Brooks starts the team still sucks and wouldn't even win 30 games so it's not like the team has made enough of an improvement to really matter, and is we lose a few more games in a row the team would be just as bad or worse than IT so this debate shouldn't even be happening.
Our team is too good on paper to be this bad on the floor. Something doesn't click and until we find out what it is it won't matter who starts because the team sucks either way. Start with the coach and FO and work your way down the the players.
I just hope there is something done because whether IT or Brooks starts the team still sucks and wouldn't even win 30 games so it's not like the team has made enough of an improvement to really matter, and is we lose a few more games in a row the team would be just as bad or worse than IT so this debate shouldn't even be happening.
Our team is too good on paper to be this bad on the floor. Something doesn't click and until we find out what it is it won't matter who starts because the team sucks either way. Start with the coach and FO and work your way down the the players.
Last edited:
Another poor article from another person who doesn't understand the dynamic within our team. Brooks has been the best PG because he's better pairing with Reke than either IT or Jimmer, and like it or not Reke has been our best player this year. You find out who compliments your top 2-3 players most effectively and go from there.
Brooks understands how to step back and be more of a role player. IT is best when he has the ball and is attacking, yet doesn't contribute much elsewhere as when he's off the ball he's essentially a 5'9" SG, which usually won't work in high school let alone the NBA. What we saw regularly last year is when IT is playing well, Reke isn't as Reke can't get the ball, and when Reke is playing well, IT isn't. Both need the ball. It's why I doubt an IT/Reke backcourt will ever work.
Jimmer theoretically would pair better with Reke, but his defense is nowhere near what it needs to be to start in this league. He looked lost against Maynor last night. Imagine if that was Westbrook going at his instead. And there's the biggest issue with Jimmer, if he's struggling guarding backups there really isn't any way to put him against starters and ask him to at least hold his own.
Sure you can take the route that Brooks isn't part of our future and we're wasting time not developing IT/Jimmer more. I'd actually agree with that to an extent. I didn't want Brooks at all and was pretty vocal about it, but it's clear he's meshing with Reke/Cuz more effectively than IT/Jimmer, and I don't have a horse in the race of those three. I really am not a big fan of any of them, and wouldn't care too much if any of the three were traded, which leads me to my other point. I don't think IT/Jimmer will ever be the solution as starting PG's next to Reke, or even if we were to trade Reke. I don't see either actually being a starter in this league.
So if the argument is play Brooks who pairs better with Reke/Cuz than the other two and who might not be here past this season, or bench him and break up the one good thing we have going right now to start one of Jimmer/IT who aren't NBA starters imo, one who doesn't mesh well with Reke at all and the other can't defend backup PG's adequately, I'm siding with keeping a Brooks/Reke backcourt for the time being. And this is from someone who doesn't like Brooks.
BTW, we saw last night a classic example of why IT isn't really a point. He's best when he's gunning, and man was he on. But, he didn't create anything for anyone.
Brooks understands how to step back and be more of a role player. IT is best when he has the ball and is attacking, yet doesn't contribute much elsewhere as when he's off the ball he's essentially a 5'9" SG, which usually won't work in high school let alone the NBA. What we saw regularly last year is when IT is playing well, Reke isn't as Reke can't get the ball, and when Reke is playing well, IT isn't. Both need the ball. It's why I doubt an IT/Reke backcourt will ever work.
Jimmer theoretically would pair better with Reke, but his defense is nowhere near what it needs to be to start in this league. He looked lost against Maynor last night. Imagine if that was Westbrook going at his instead. And there's the biggest issue with Jimmer, if he's struggling guarding backups there really isn't any way to put him against starters and ask him to at least hold his own.
Sure you can take the route that Brooks isn't part of our future and we're wasting time not developing IT/Jimmer more. I'd actually agree with that to an extent. I didn't want Brooks at all and was pretty vocal about it, but it's clear he's meshing with Reke/Cuz more effectively than IT/Jimmer, and I don't have a horse in the race of those three. I really am not a big fan of any of them, and wouldn't care too much if any of the three were traded, which leads me to my other point. I don't think IT/Jimmer will ever be the solution as starting PG's next to Reke, or even if we were to trade Reke. I don't see either actually being a starter in this league.
So if the argument is play Brooks who pairs better with Reke/Cuz than the other two and who might not be here past this season, or bench him and break up the one good thing we have going right now to start one of Jimmer/IT who aren't NBA starters imo, one who doesn't mesh well with Reke at all and the other can't defend backup PG's adequately, I'm siding with keeping a Brooks/Reke backcourt for the time being. And this is from someone who doesn't like Brooks.
BTW, we saw last night a classic example of why IT isn't really a point. He's best when he's gunning, and man was he on. But, he didn't create anything for anyone.
Last edited:
Baja this post makes too much sense. I'd add that you should do the same thing with playing style, which is why I'm so insistent on us running a half court offense as opposed to just relying on running every game. If the season is going to be thrown away record wise we should at least start preparing for next year and the year after. We already wasted a year last year playing Tyreke at the 3 and not implementing a halfcourt offense, lets not waste another.
I think the key with Brooks, like many would be roleplayers, is that he is better with Reke and Cousins out there, which is the primary job determinant for the position. Same way that Derek Fisher was better next to Shaq and Kobe than many more talented guys would have been. When Brooks starts next to Reke and Cousins, i.e. when we're healthy and not suspended, our starters have looked good and sometimes more than good almost every time.
Now Brooks alone? Say Reke and Cousins are both hurt tommorow, is Brooks better than IT under those circumstances? Maybe, but I would not want to put money on it. But that's not what you gameplan for. As a starter this season, Brooks averages 1 shot every 3.5 minutes. As a starter this season Isaiah averages 1 shot every 2.6 minutes (was at 1 every 2.9 overall last year). We don't know what Jimmer would do as a starter, but off the bench he is chucking up a 1 shot every 2.3minutes (was at 1 every 2.5 last year). The gap there is significant -- Brooks is "getting it" and letting Cuz and Reke do their things at a much higher level (Reke himself only goes 1 every 2.6, Cousins is at 1 every 2.0) . That may or may not make him a better player, but it most definitely (shout out to BJax, another aggressive mite better off the bench) makes him a better player next to stars who need the ball. The gold standard for this sort of thing is a guy like Mario Chalmers at 1 every 4.1min. Brooks is coming closest to realizing the value of that role: bring it up, help set the offense, spot up, stay out of the way.
I have no Brooks dog in this fight. I did not like the signing. But I did not like the signing because I did not think he could/would be wiling to play like this. He's chucked shot up at 1 every 2.4min over his career. A complete gunner. That's the same pace as Jamaal Crawford. But so far he's reigned himself in. I think people are missing the change thus far.
Now Brooks alone? Say Reke and Cousins are both hurt tommorow, is Brooks better than IT under those circumstances? Maybe, but I would not want to put money on it. But that's not what you gameplan for. As a starter this season, Brooks averages 1 shot every 3.5 minutes. As a starter this season Isaiah averages 1 shot every 2.6 minutes (was at 1 every 2.9 overall last year). We don't know what Jimmer would do as a starter, but off the bench he is chucking up a 1 shot every 2.3minutes (was at 1 every 2.5 last year). The gap there is significant -- Brooks is "getting it" and letting Cuz and Reke do their things at a much higher level (Reke himself only goes 1 every 2.6, Cousins is at 1 every 2.0) . That may or may not make him a better player, but it most definitely (shout out to BJax, another aggressive mite better off the bench) makes him a better player next to stars who need the ball. The gold standard for this sort of thing is a guy like Mario Chalmers at 1 every 4.1min. Brooks is coming closest to realizing the value of that role: bring it up, help set the offense, spot up, stay out of the way.
I have no Brooks dog in this fight. I did not like the signing. But I did not like the signing because I did not think he could/would be wiling to play like this. He's chucked shot up at 1 every 2.4min over his career. A complete gunner. That's the same pace as Jamaal Crawford. But so far he's reigned himself in. I think people are missing the change thus far.
Last edited:
What does Reke being better with Brooks than IT have to do with your winning % question? If we are not going to fully commit to giving all the playtime to our young talent IT/Jimmer/Robinson/Honeycutt we should be playing the group who works the best together in hopes they improve as time goes on. Sometimes it takes a few seasons of consistent lineups for players to really get each other and have success. Consistency is something we haven't had at all.
You're right. We haven't had consistency. It's because nothing has worked. Losing teams don't have a solid 8 man rotation like winning teams would have. I think all the inconsistency is because it seems no matter how many games we have a lineup it never seems to get better. Not to mention the coaching carousel and the GM who puts the team together.
Personally I would rather go with position players but it's not a very popular idea here. I want a PG that passes, a SG that has a nice long range shot, a SF who can drive or shoot the long/mid range jumpers, a PF who can rebound, defend the post and score in the post, and a center who's our shot blocker/rebounder.
I think it's best to build a base with players that fit rather than trying to build a base which will topple over if the wrong players are added (even if the wrong players are position players). I don't think we would be any better if we added Lowry. We are in the same situation as the Lakers are. Good on paper, bad on the floor.
Personally I would rather go with position players but it's not a very popular idea here. I want a PG that passes, a SG that has a nice long range shot, a SF who can drive or shoot the long/mid range jumpers, a PF who can rebound, defend the post and score in the post, and a center who's our shot blocker/rebounder.
I think it's best to build a base with players that fit rather than trying to build a base which will topple over if the wrong players are added (even if the wrong players are position players). I don't think we would be any better if we added Lowry. We are in the same situation as the Lakers are. Good on paper, bad on the floor.
I don't see how you can say nothing has worked when the guys haven't even been given a consistent run together. Judging what may happen, on such small sample size, is incredibly short sighted. We have had runs where we look incredibly good together. Just because it isn't happening regularly now doesn't mean it never will.
You mention the Lakers which is funny. If they turn their team around and become a competitive playoff team will you change your mind on our team not having the possibility of working out? Westbrook and Durant won 23 games their first season together. Players improve and learn to fit roles. Teams get better. Rarely does any of this happen in a short period of time. We are talking years here, not a quarter of a season... Which is how long Brooks and Reke have been together.
You mention the Lakers which is funny. If they turn their team around and become a competitive playoff team will you change your mind on our team not having the possibility of working out? Westbrook and Durant won 23 games their first season together. Players improve and learn to fit roles. Teams get better. Rarely does any of this happen in a short period of time. We are talking years here, not a quarter of a season... Which is how long Brooks and Reke have been together.
I am not willing to wait YEARS to see improvement on a team that I feel is flawed from the get-go. We have already had to wait 3 years and many coaches, and pairings and look where we are now (in regards to how the team is being built--- 6-7 years if you count everything else before that). You realize that every team that has been bad like us from 06-12 has now improved enough to make the playoffs right? (with the exception to Charlotte I think) We are the only team that has not improved.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, I am doing this off the top of my head.
EDIT: Minnesota last went in 2004. But we all know they will make the playoffs before we do unless Love ups and quits on the team.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, I am doing this off the top of my head.
EDIT: Minnesota last went in 2004. But we all know they will make the playoffs before we do unless Love ups and quits on the team.
Last edited:
Except with a few of us it was not hindsight! A number of us were pushing hard for it on this board. A number of us also did not think that getting James Johnson addresses the most pressing need. I thought getting Brooks was a terrible move especially considering the roster. I also didn't think Robinson was the right guy for this team.
The front office has no vision. It has nothing to do with hindsight and everything to do with common sense. Now Brooks has partially worked but money could have been used elsewhere.
All of our aquisitions are cheap swing for the fences type moves which rarely work out. Two seasons ago we had a team that needed a couple of good signings and a new coach and we would be set for a while. We had a very good 3 guard rotation in Evans - Beno - Thornton who all showed a bit of chemistry and played well with each other. Then there was the 3 big men rotation that was kicking butts towards the end of the season in Cousins - Dalembert - Thompson. All that we needed to do was re-sign our own free agents (Dalembert and Thornton) and sign one of many available defensive SFs that could shoot a spot up 3.
What we did was pick up Westphal's option for next season (he was gone less than 10 games into the new season). Trade Beno for Slamons and trade down in the draft to pick Jimmer and blow a good portion of our spending money on Chuck Hayes. We didn't address one need but created 2 or 3 more in the process. Absolutely terrible decision making and we carried that into this off-season with extending Smart for another season on top of this one and getting JJ, Brooks and Robinson.
Like I said Brooks sort of worked and if push comes to shove, I still take Beno over him to play with Reke and Thornton. We still have no interior defensive presence and while Salmons has been servicable at SF, we still don't have a SF that can match up on the bigger SFs in the league and shoot a spot up 3. Oh and in the process we have blown all of the cap room we did have still have pieces that do not match. Its depressing. It has nothing to do with hindsight and everything to do with vision and basketball smarts. The teams that are smarlty run in the NBA would NEVER do what we did.
OKC burned Harden to keep Ibaka. If that were up to us, we would have kept Harden and burnt Ibaka despite the fact that you can get a scoring punch off the bench for far less money than what Harden costs. Our front office no longer has the smarts to runn the show and they do NOT know what it takes to win. They continue to undervalue the very things that differentiate winners and losers.
The front office has no vision. It has nothing to do with hindsight and everything to do with common sense. Now Brooks has partially worked but money could have been used elsewhere.
All of our aquisitions are cheap swing for the fences type moves which rarely work out. Two seasons ago we had a team that needed a couple of good signings and a new coach and we would be set for a while. We had a very good 3 guard rotation in Evans - Beno - Thornton who all showed a bit of chemistry and played well with each other. Then there was the 3 big men rotation that was kicking butts towards the end of the season in Cousins - Dalembert - Thompson. All that we needed to do was re-sign our own free agents (Dalembert and Thornton) and sign one of many available defensive SFs that could shoot a spot up 3.
What we did was pick up Westphal's option for next season (he was gone less than 10 games into the new season). Trade Beno for Slamons and trade down in the draft to pick Jimmer and blow a good portion of our spending money on Chuck Hayes. We didn't address one need but created 2 or 3 more in the process. Absolutely terrible decision making and we carried that into this off-season with extending Smart for another season on top of this one and getting JJ, Brooks and Robinson.
Like I said Brooks sort of worked and if push comes to shove, I still take Beno over him to play with Reke and Thornton. We still have no interior defensive presence and while Salmons has been servicable at SF, we still don't have a SF that can match up on the bigger SFs in the league and shoot a spot up 3. Oh and in the process we have blown all of the cap room we did have still have pieces that do not match. Its depressing. It has nothing to do with hindsight and everything to do with vision and basketball smarts. The teams that are smarlty run in the NBA would NEVER do what we did.
OKC burned Harden to keep Ibaka. If that were up to us, we would have kept Harden and burnt Ibaka despite the fact that you can get a scoring punch off the bench for far less money than what Harden costs. Our front office no longer has the smarts to runn the show and they do NOT know what it takes to win. They continue to undervalue the very things that differentiate winners and losers.
Want to see something pretty amazing?
I went and did some hard data crunching, taking a look at each game in which the Brooks/Evans/Salmons/JT/Cuz quintet has been together as a starting unit, then going through the play by play and checking the scores when the group was broken up by subs, or put back in. Here are the results:
Game 1: vs. BKN -- 23-15 (18-13 first quarter, 5-2 after half)
Game 2: vs. LAL -- 24-22 (11-10 first quarter, 13-12 third quarter)
Game 3: vs. UTH -- 58-44 (27-18 first, 6-5 second, 25-21 third)
Game 4: vs. UTH -- 38-30 (16-16 first, 22-14 third)
Game 5: vs. MIN -- 27-27 (21-20 first, 6-7 third)
Game 6: vs. TOR -- 58-53 (21-25 first, 10-5 second, 18-19 third, 9-4 fourth)
Game 7: vs. OKC -- 26-23 (8-10 first, 18-13 third)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total score: 254-214 +40/7gms = +5.7pts/game
Look at those numbers. Look at them. And you wonder why some of us have been calling for MORE of that five some? Why we are so pissed at the coach for not putting them back in on schedule, not lettig them close games? Look at the numbers! Six of those seven teams are likely playoff teams too. That group of starters has been matched with Kobe, Durant, Westbrook, Deron, Love...huge stars. And its won, handily. So you know how good a +5.7pts a game margin is? Let's put it this way: Miami only has a +5.0. It would be the 6th best +/- in the entire NBA.
The problem is not that lineup. The problem is everything BUT that lineup. That lineup has been doing great. if guys are healthy and not suspended, its won almost every encounter. Smart is an idiot for not just playing that 5 some 35 minutes a game with each other. its been working.
P.S. Somebody please forward this onto Dwyer. Somebody else over to Smart/Petrie. I don't trust any of those nitwits to figure it out themselves.
I went and did some hard data crunching, taking a look at each game in which the Brooks/Evans/Salmons/JT/Cuz quintet has been together as a starting unit, then going through the play by play and checking the scores when the group was broken up by subs, or put back in. Here are the results:
Game 1: vs. BKN -- 23-15 (18-13 first quarter, 5-2 after half)
Game 2: vs. LAL -- 24-22 (11-10 first quarter, 13-12 third quarter)
Game 3: vs. UTH -- 58-44 (27-18 first, 6-5 second, 25-21 third)
Game 4: vs. UTH -- 38-30 (16-16 first, 22-14 third)
Game 5: vs. MIN -- 27-27 (21-20 first, 6-7 third)
Game 6: vs. TOR -- 58-53 (21-25 first, 10-5 second, 18-19 third, 9-4 fourth)
Game 7: vs. OKC -- 26-23 (8-10 first, 18-13 third)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total score: 254-214 +40/7gms = +5.7pts/game
Look at those numbers. Look at them. And you wonder why some of us have been calling for MORE of that five some? Why we are so pissed at the coach for not putting them back in on schedule, not lettig them close games? Look at the numbers! Six of those seven teams are likely playoff teams too. That group of starters has been matched with Kobe, Durant, Westbrook, Deron, Love...huge stars. And its won, handily. So you know how good a +5.7pts a game margin is? Let's put it this way: Miami only has a +5.0. It would be the 6th best +/- in the entire NBA.
The problem is not that lineup. The problem is everything BUT that lineup. That lineup has been doing great. if guys are healthy and not suspended, its won almost every encounter. Smart is an idiot for not just playing that 5 some 35 minutes a game with each other. its been working.
P.S. Somebody please forward this onto Dwyer. Somebody else over to Smart/Petrie. I don't trust any of those nitwits to figure it out themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the times the kings run plays they are never executed and we go straight to a pick and pop to cousins who shoots it right away..... All it takes is getting to the point where plays are ran and executed. Then when the play is executed look for that extra pass. Easier said than done with smart at the helm.
Want to see something pretty amazing?
I went and did some hard data crunching, taking a look at each game in which the Brooks/Evans/Salmons/JT/Cuz quintet has been together as a starting unit, then going through the play by play and checking the scores when the group was broken up by subs, or put back in. Here are the results:
Game 1: vs. BKN -- 23-15 (18-13 first quarter, 5-2 after half)
Game 2: vs. LAL -- 24-22 (11-10 first quarter, 13-12 third quarter)
Game 3: vs. UTH -- 58-44 (27-18 first, 6-5 second, 25-21 third)
Game 4: vs. UTH -- 38-30 (16-16 first, 22-14 third)
Game 5: vs. MIN -- 27-27 (21-20 first, 6-7 third)
Game 6: vs. TOR -- 58-53 (21-25 first, 10-5 second, 18-19 third, 9-4 fourth)
Game 7: vs. OKC -- 26-23 (8-10 first, 18-13 third)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total score: 254-214 +40/7gms = +5.7pts/game
Look at those numbers. Look at them. And you wonder why some of us have been calling for MORE of that five some? Why we are so pissed at the coach for not putting them back in on schedule, not lettig them close games? Look at the numbers! Six of those seven teams are likely playoff teams too. That group of starters has been matched with Kobe, Durant, Westbrook, Deron, Love...huge stars. And its won, handily. So you know how good a +5.7pts a game margin is? Let's put it this way: Miami only has a +5.0. It would be the 6th best +/- in the entire NBA.
The problem is not that lineup. The problem is everything BUT that lineup. That lineup has been doing great. if guys are healthy and not suspended, its won almost every encounter. Smart is an idiot for not just playing that 5 some 35 minutes a game with each other. its been working.
P.S. Somebody please forward this onto Dwyer. Somebody else over to Smart/Petrie. I don't trust any of those nitwits to figure it out themselves.
I went and did some hard data crunching, taking a look at each game in which the Brooks/Evans/Salmons/JT/Cuz quintet has been together as a starting unit, then going through the play by play and checking the scores when the group was broken up by subs, or put back in. Here are the results:
Game 1: vs. BKN -- 23-15 (18-13 first quarter, 5-2 after half)
Game 2: vs. LAL -- 24-22 (11-10 first quarter, 13-12 third quarter)
Game 3: vs. UTH -- 58-44 (27-18 first, 6-5 second, 25-21 third)
Game 4: vs. UTH -- 38-30 (16-16 first, 22-14 third)
Game 5: vs. MIN -- 27-27 (21-20 first, 6-7 third)
Game 6: vs. TOR -- 58-53 (21-25 first, 10-5 second, 18-19 third, 9-4 fourth)
Game 7: vs. OKC -- 26-23 (8-10 first, 18-13 third)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total score: 254-214 +40/7gms = +5.7pts/game
Look at those numbers. Look at them. And you wonder why some of us have been calling for MORE of that five some? Why we are so pissed at the coach for not putting them back in on schedule, not lettig them close games? Look at the numbers! Six of those seven teams are likely playoff teams too. That group of starters has been matched with Kobe, Durant, Westbrook, Deron, Love...huge stars. And its won, handily. So you know how good a +5.7pts a game margin is? Let's put it this way: Miami only has a +5.0. It would be the 6th best +/- in the entire NBA.
The problem is not that lineup. The problem is everything BUT that lineup. That lineup has been doing great. if guys are healthy and not suspended, its won almost every encounter. Smart is an idiot for not just playing that 5 some 35 minutes a game with each other. its been working.
P.S. Somebody please forward this onto Dwyer. Somebody else over to Smart/Petrie. I don't trust any of those nitwits to figure it out themselves.
Last edited:
This was the failure of our rebuild. We needed to resign our free agents and we still would have had most of our cap to work with and we needed a sf(we could have maxed him or close to it). That was the only needs on that team that and time and coaching leadership. That off season still hurts.
Brick I agree and that is something that goes back further then even just those starting 5. Its not really one of the problems its the way they are subbed out and the guys who come in behind them being even more undersized and not playing any sort of focused play. The success in that lineup is more on Evans playing very good and Cousins having his games and putting up fairly consistant numbers and JT being rock solid. Brooks staying out of the way and hitting shots and Salmons doing whatever he does is a bonus.
We have the talent to win we lack the vision and focused leadership.
Brick I agree and that is something that goes back further then even just those starting 5. Its not really one of the problems its the way they are subbed out and the guys who come in behind them being even more undersized and not playing any sort of focused play. The success in that lineup is more on Evans playing very good and Cousins having his games and putting up fairly consistant numbers and JT being rock solid. Brooks staying out of the way and hitting shots and Salmons doing whatever he does is a bonus.
We have the talent to win we lack the vision and focused leadership.
So…he wants to put Thomas back in the same position that I was against all of last season? No thanks. I like Isaiah and I think he’s a great spark plug to have but he’s not a guy I want in the starting line-up. Especially when I remember when I.T was ignoring Tyreke during stretches of last season’s games.
Now I’d rather have Jimmer play along side Tyreke, but since I haven’t been able to watch games and people here have said that Aaron Brooks is developing chemistry with Tyreke, I think it’s better to leave it like that…
Also, we seriously need to keep a line-up and stick to it. This is ridiculous. I can’t remember the last time we had a regular line-up. Eric Musselman had his “it takes 40 games to determine your team,” I can’t remember about Reggie Theus, Kenny Natt (what did he do?), Paul W. couldn’t decide either, and now with our latest one Keith Smart. Dude, find your players and stick with them. We’re not a rodeo show. You don’t need to play every player. Find a group that works & stick with them....And hire someone who knows how to manage players times because it seems like Coach Smart has no clue as to when his players should be coming in-and-out of the game.
Now I’d rather have Jimmer play along side Tyreke, but since I haven’t been able to watch games and people here have said that Aaron Brooks is developing chemistry with Tyreke, I think it’s better to leave it like that…
Also, we seriously need to keep a line-up and stick to it. This is ridiculous. I can’t remember the last time we had a regular line-up. Eric Musselman had his “it takes 40 games to determine your team,” I can’t remember about Reggie Theus, Kenny Natt (what did he do?), Paul W. couldn’t decide either, and now with our latest one Keith Smart. Dude, find your players and stick with them. We’re not a rodeo show. You don’t need to play every player. Find a group that works & stick with them....And hire someone who knows how to manage players times because it seems like Coach Smart has no clue as to when his players should be coming in-and-out of the game.
