Truehoop article on Tyreke's season and situation

I do believe that jimmer does have some Steve Nash qualities. But say in a few years is it possible for jimmer to be much closer version to a Nash type player? I'm thinking it is. We know jimmer can shoot, has a high bball IQ, and is an absolute bball junkie and gymrat. That combination can be pretty lethal for improving your game year to year. I'm not sure if he will be Steve Nash, but after watching jimmer since college and seeing his improvement each year, I wouldn't place bets against him.

But with Smart as the coach, this would be a very tall order for him, so maybe for that reason I would bet against him. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, if Jimmer isn't at Nash level in 3 years time you pay me a million bucks. Deal?
You might want to take a look at Nash in his third season, where he shot 36% from the floor and averaged 7.9 ppg in nearly 32 minutes of play. Secondly, are you going to give me Nelson to coach Jimmer? How about D'antoni? I didn't say Jimmer would reach Nash level, it would take special circumstances. He has the potential, though.
 
You might want to take a look at Nash in his third season, where he shot 36% from the floor and averaged 7.9 ppg in nearly 32 minutes of play. Secondly, are you going to give me Nelson to coach Jimmer? How about D'antoni? I didn't say Jimmer would reach Nash level, it would take special circumstances. He has the potential, though.
You cherry picked the worst season of his 16 year career when he was limited to 40 games and shot by far his lowest %. And that still doesn't address the huge differences in their natural skills. Basically they are both white from smaller schools and they can hit 3s.
 
You cherry picked the worst season of his 16 year career when he was limited to 40 games and shot by far his lowest %. And that still doesn't address the huge differences in their natural skills. Basically they are both white from smaller schools and they can hit 3s.
He said in three years time, so I picked Nash' third season. Pay attention.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I'm not going to discuss role, as that is not defined on this team.

Talent level, Jimmer has Steve Nash talent and also reminds me of Bibby in his prime. However, Jimmer is stronger than both of those players and can be a better defender.
Good lord. I'm trying to think who exactly his sort of nonsense benefits.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Hey Brick,
What do you think the starting lineup should be?
That is the question isn't it?

now my earlier posts were suggesting this: we didn not give our lunkhead unbalanced Reke/Thronton backcourt enough time to see what he had, let alone develop any chemistry. To me its obviously unbalanced -- I pioneered the argument around here that Reke/KMart could not work because you don't pair 20pt scorers in the backcourt. BUT, its still true that Smart didn't give it a fair chance. He took over, there were no practices. Hayes got hurt, Hickson sucked, we had three different starting PFs in the 22 game tryout. Thornton got hurt, only played in half those games, and was limited when he did (deep thigh bruise). Cousins got sick in the middle of it and is a noticeably better player now. And because management screwed up nd wanted to cover its *** John Frickin' Salmons was there stopping the ball and inflicting worst in the league pain on that lineup every single game as the starting SF. On top of which we played 2/3 of the games on the road, against good teams almost every night. And after one month, we said, ok, no mas. A month! it takes years for top teams to get their chemistry down. We gave up after a month of contstant chaos. It was not given any sort of fair chance. And we STILL won more games over that span than we have won since we abandoned it.

And so, you go away from that. And hey, you know what? If you go away from that, install Rajon Rondo as your PG, and start kicking butt, I don't miss it. The Reke/Thronton lineup looks unbalanced to me. But we didn't. We went away from it to instill utter chaos. 13 man rotations. Hordes of tiny chucking guards out for themselves and who couldn't defend me. Now we have a choice of running and scoring and losing, or walking and defending and losing. We scare nobody. And so you know what? We are worse off, FAR worse off, now than when we were lunkheading it. When we lunkheaded it we were dangerous. We beat some top teams. On any given night we had three guys in the linuep who could go big. And they might not. Did not always. But it was a lineup that was dangerous. And more than a lineup, a philopshy that was dangeorus. Our best guys had the ball every night, and while they weren't ripping up the league, all three of them were putting up numbers, were dangeorus. And still very young with a chance to make it work. Now instead we have a random mediocre NBA talent of the game thing going on. Our 2nd best guy is totally frozen out. Our 3rd best guy is coming off the bench fighting for the ball with the little chuckers. And you're trying to convince me this is better? Bull hookie its better.

Does that mean you go back to it? Maybe. Actually yes, unless you can quickly prove there is something not just a little better, but MUCH better we can do with the lineup. If we could no better than just be the same level as we were with the lunkhead, then I go lunkhead, becauseIi am going to win and lose with my best guys, not random roster filler (not to mention btw our guys had far more trade value featured in the lunkhead -- nwo not only isn't it working, but we've ruined the ability to trade them for significant replacemnts). In the short term James Johnson is just killing us offensively out there, and tongiht we are playing the Hawks who have nobody he needs to guard. So if IT is still out tonight I might actually go Reke/Jimmer/Salmons/JT/Cousins. The Hawks are starting Stevensen and Korver at the 2/3. We can hide Jimmer on Stevensen -- which is the constant problem with starting him -- and Salmons can check Korver (his constant problem is that he can't guard big SFs). For one night we have shooting and ballhandling and a two star focus in Reke/Cousins. And Thornton still off the bench getting minutes in our lunkhead arrangement. But that's not an everyday lineup.

The Nets come in the next game, and they have Deron, and Johnson and maybe Wallace if he's back. Jimmer can't be on the floor against them. Neither can Salmons handle their power wings. So JJ has to come back at SF. But Reke has always done well against Deron. So I still want him at PG. And then the SG needs to be somewhat fullsized to be able to handle Johnson. So boom, there is your lunkhead. with Reke/Thornotn/JJ at the 1/2/3. And you just have to pray Thornton can shoot for the team. Meanwhile Petrie's army of midget gunners overflows on the bench, and Smart probably runs a Thomas/Brooks/Jimmer 1/2/3 resrve unit.

The right starting linuep is vexing for this team. A chunk of that is Johnson's faiulure to be even reasonable on the offensive end. A chunk of it is a bunch of minature gunning guards. Either way, I have a hard tim contructing a lineup I think actually works wihtout the lunkhead. And if I can't I default to playing my best players, giving them the ball, and telling them to make it work. This random everybody has a greenligt, everybody gets 20 minutes, nonsense is jsut embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
That is the question isn't it?

now my earlier posts were suggesting this: we didn not give our lunkhead unbalanced Reke/Thronton backcourt enough time to see what he had, let alone develop any chemistry. To me its obviously unbalanced -- I pioneered the arugment that reke/KMart could nto work becuase you don't pair 20pt scorers in the backcourt. BUT, Smart didn't give it a fair chance. He took over, there were no practices. Hayes got hurt, Hickson sucked, we had three different starting PFs in the 22 game tryout. Thornton got hurt, only played in half those games, and was limited when he did (deep thigh bruise). Cousins got sick in the middle of it and is a noticeably better player now. And because management screwed upa nd wanted to cover its *** John Frickin' Salmons was there stopping the ball and inflicting worst int he league pain on that lineup every single game. On top of which we played 2/3 of the games on the road, against good teams almsot every night. It was not given any sort of fair chance.

And so, you go away from that. And hey, you know what? If you go away form that, install Rajon rondo as your PG, and start kicking butt, I don't miss it. The Reke/Thronton lineup looks unablanced to me. But we didn't. We went away from it to instill utter chaos. 13 man rotations. Hordes of tiny chucking guards out for themselves and who couldn't defend me. We have a choice of running and scoring and losing, or walking and defending and losing. And so you know what? We are worse off, FAR worse off, now than when we were lunkheading it. When we lunkheaded it we were dangerous. We beat some top teams. On any given night we had three guys in the linuep who could go big. And they might not. Did not always. But it was a lineup that was dangerous. And more than a lineup, a philopshy that was dangeorus. Our best guys had the ball every night, and while they weren't ripping up the league, all three of them were putting up numbers, were dangeorus. And still very young with a chance to make it work. Now instead we have a random mediocre NBA talent of the game thing going on. Our 2nd best guy is totally frozen out. Our 3rd best guy is coming off the bench fighting for the ball with the little chuckers. And you're trying to convince me this is better? Bull hookie its better.

Does that mean you go back to it? Maybe. Actually yes, unless you can quickly prove there is something not jsut a little better, but MUCH better we can do with the lineup. If we could no better than just be the same level as we were with the lunkhead, then I go lunkhead, because i am going to win and lose wiht my best guys, not random roster filler. In the short term James Johnson is just killing us offensively out there, and tongiht we are playing the Hawks who have nobody he needs to guard. So if IT is still out tonight I might actually go Reke/Jimmer/Salmons/JT/Cousins. The Hawks are starting Stevensen and Korver at the 2/3. We can hide Jimmer on Stevensen -- which is the contstant problem with starting him -- and Salmosn can chcekc Korver (his constant problem is that he can't guard big SFs). For one night we have shooting and ballahndling and a two star focus in Reke/Cousins. And Thornton still off the bench getting minutes in our lunkhead arrangement. But that's not an everyday lineup.

The Nets come in the next game, and they have Deron, and Johnson and maybe Wallace if he's back. Jimmer can't be on the floor against them. Neither can Salmons handle their power wings. So JJ has to come back at SF. But Reke has always done well against Deron. So I still want him at PG. And then the SG needs to be somewhat fullsized to be able to handle Johnson. So boom, there is your lunkhead. with Reke/Thornotn/JJ at the 1/2/3. And you just have to pray Thornton can shoot for the team. Meanwhile Petrie's army of midget gunners overflows ont he bench, and Smart probably runs a Thomas/Brooks/Jimmer 1/2/3 resrve unit.
So what would your starting lineup be?
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
It was a joke but no, I did not get a clear picture as to what his starting lineup is.
That's because it was contingent on the matchups -- which he explained in detail. Any starting lineup we could put together without roster moves is going to be making the best of a bad situation anyway -- at least that's my opinion on the matter. Personally, I'm far more interested in what the starting lineup is going to be next year and how we get there.
 
I think its also important that we acknowledge Tyreke's defense. So far this year he has looked FANTASTIC on this side of the ball. To me right now he looks like what Tony Allen would be if he were also an elite ball handler and penetrator.
 
Jason Jones tweeted that Smart gave all the players charts of their FG%s from different areas, and told them to stay to their strengths. Well blimey, we're going to have an even better time with our starting lineup when both Tyreke and JJ won't attempt to take jumpshots because they have to stay to their strengths and what not. We're screwed.
 
Jason Jones tweeted that Smart gave all the players charts of their FG%s from different areas, and told them to stay to their strengths. Well blimey, we're going to have an even better time with our starting lineup when both Tyreke and JJ won't attempt to take jumpshots because they have to stay to their strengths and what not. We're screwed.
Umm, do we want them taking jumpshots? 70% chance that a jumpshot is a change of possession, so, yeah, I'm fine with them not taking jumpshots.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Jason Jones tweeted that Smart gave all the players charts of their FG%s from different areas, and told them to stay to their strengths. Well blimey, we're going to have an even better time with our starting lineup when both Tyreke and JJ won't attempt to take jumpshots because they have to stay to their strengths and what not. We're screwed.
Interesting. It conforms to the idea that Smart is going to let the players determine what shots they take based upon the empirical data of the last few games. So Smart isn't going to be restricting them and their roles. The players are going to be restricting themselves. At least that's the theory.
 
Umm, do we want them taking jumpshots? 70% chance that a jumpshot is a change of possession, so, yeah, I'm fine with them not taking jumpshots.
I get what you mean, but if it's a good, fairly close shot for say Tyreke don't you want him taking it? Or would you rather he continue to pound it into traffic? Or does this mean we just go 3v5 on offense with our starting line up?
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Don't you think the fundamental question has to be asked: What is a good shot for Tyreke Evans? Unless Evans can know what exactly a good shot is for him (or we can know for that matter), then how can you possibly assess whether he is taking good shots or bad? To me a good shot for Evans is a layup, which means breaking his man down and going for it if the paint isn't clogged and there are defenders waiting for his charge. A good shot is also an open 15 footer, 20 footer, or even 3 point shot where he can get total balance and put up the shot. A bad shot is where he is somewhat covered 15, 20 ft. and especially at the 3 point line. The last thing I want Tyreke doing is throwing up outside shots when he is covered. That's when his leg gets thrown out, his head goes back further than his feet, and nearly falls on his butt when he shoots the ball. I'd also say that a good shot is when Tyreke can post up. We saw him do some of that his rookie year. Now it's left the freaking building. What's up with that? So it's not just about where he takes the shot on the floor, it's what the circumstances are at different points of the floor. At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Others may have different opinions on the matter.
 
Don't you think the fundamental question has to be asked: What is a good shot for Tyreke Evans? Unless Evans can know what exactly a good shot is for him (or we can know for that matter), then how can you possibly assess whether he is taking good shots or bad? To me a good shot for Evans is a layup, which means breaking his man down and going for it if the paint isn't clogged and there are defenders waiting for his charge. A good shot is also an open 15 footer, 20 footer, or even 3 point shot where he can get total balance and put up the shot. A bad shot is where he is somewhat covered 15, 20 ft. and especially at the 3 point line. The last thing I want Tyreke doing is throwing up outside shots when he is covered. That's when his leg gets thrown out, his head goes back further than his feet, and nearly falls on his butt when he shoots the ball. I'd also say that a good shot is when Tyreke can post up. We saw him do some of that his rookie year. Now it's left the freaking building. What's up with that? So it's not just about where he takes the shot on the floor, it's what the circumstances are at different points of the floor. At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Others may have different opinions on the matter.
Was gonna make a thread about this.


Remember during rekes rookie year right when kmart got injured and reke was having his first career offensive outings just exploding for 25-30 pts, we were going to him in the post! Alot!!!

I remember thinking this dude could become one of the greatest post up guards in the league.

Have we seen that once this year? Or last year?


Why?!!!??
 
Don't you think the fundamental question has to be asked: What is a good shot for Tyreke Evans? Unless Evans can know what exactly a good shot is for him (or we can know for that matter), then how can you possibly assess whether he is taking good shots or bad? To me a good shot for Evans is a layup, which means breaking his man down and going for it if the paint isn't clogged and there are defenders waiting for his charge. A good shot is also an open 15 footer, 20 footer, or even 3 point shot where he can get total balance and put up the shot. A bad shot is where he is somewhat covered 15, 20 ft. and especially at the 3 point line. The last thing I want Tyreke doing is throwing up outside shots when he is covered. That's when his leg gets thrown out, his head goes back further than his feet, and nearly falls on his butt when he shoots the ball. I'd also say that a good shot is when Tyreke can post up. We saw him do some of that his rookie year. Now it's left the freaking building. What's up with that? So it's not just about where he takes the shot on the floor, it's what the circumstances are at different points of the floor. At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Others may have different opinions on the matter.
I agree with you too. I'm just afraid that players are not going to draw that distinction - i.e. now an open 15 ft shot becomes a bad one because his previous %s from that spot say so (without telling the full story of the circumstance as you mentioned).

I believe recent tweets by Tyreke's brother or maybe even a quote from Tyreke himself had him saying he wanted to get the ball in the post more.

edit: found it - was from Jason Jones. link: http://sulia.com/channel/sacramento-kings/f/57f3f4de-e606-4970-8543-cb237ef0593f/?source=twitter
 
Was gonna make a thread about this.


Remember during rekes rookie year right when kmart got injured and reke was having his first career offensive outings just exploding for 25-30 pts, we were going to him in the post! Alot!!!

I remember thinking this dude could become one of the greatest post up guards in the league.

Have we seen that once this year? Or last year?


Why?!!!??



Apologies to Slim; it's usually his shtick.

Seriously though, it's about spacing and finding the right offense to maximize the talents of these players. Evans is a slasher and a great post up guard. With the right movement, we can easily get Evans in the lane and have him break down the defense, but it really depends on players knowing where they should be and when, including Evans.
 
Last edited:
Umm, do we want them taking jumpshots? 70% chance that a jumpshot is a change of possession, so, yeah, I'm fine with them not taking jumpshots.

Yes, they have to. Even if they don't make them, they have to. You cannot have your 2 and 3 pass up open jump shots in this league. Never taking them means an even easier task for the defense. If I am guarding Tyreke or JJ at this point I don't go past 17 feet. Clog the lane, shut down the drive and passing lanes. You can do that on two sides of the court, it destroys the offense. Even if Smart had the most amazing offense in the world, you couldn't run it like this. The fact that our NBA head coach doesn't see that is dumbfounding to me. This is not advanced concepts, this is basic fundamental basketball that I teach to 8-12 year olds.
 
Yes, they have to. Even if they don't make them, they have to. You cannot have your 2 and 3 pass up open jump shots in this league. Never taking them means an even easier task for the defense. If I am guarding Tyreke or JJ at this point I don't go past 17 feet. Clog the lane, shut down the drive and passing lanes. You can do that on two sides of the court, it destroys the offense. Even if Smart had the most amazing offense in the world, you couldn't run it like this. The fact that our NBA head coach doesn't see that is dumbfounding to me. This is not advanced concepts, this is basic fundamental basketball that I teach to 8-12 year olds.
Sorry, but I'm just going to have to disagree with you there. Tyreke's jumpshot is not an offensive threat, no matter where he takes it. His form isn't uniform from shot to shot, and that means he will never make the shots consistently. He can't keep a defense honest by taking those shots, because there is no pressure to close on him. His man can just move to box out for the rebound and we head the other way. Cousins, IT and even JT have better jumpshots than Tyreke. I haven't watched much tape of Johnson's shot to find the problem there, but the career percentages speak for themselves.

Now, you can cover for lack of shooting with supporting personnel, but we do not have the personnel to cover for him at the 3 or 4 position (Where have you gone, Ryan Anderson? This nation turns its lonely eyes to you.) Evans has been scouted sufficiently to effectively negate his sole skill, the right-handed drive and lay-up. As it stands, I would be fine with Evans splitting ball-handling with IT and Jimmer and working plays to get him cuts to the rim and scoring in transition. I don't care if I ever see him shoot from beyond the free throw line again.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
This is beyond stupid. Everybody gets a green light for two weeks, Smart charts the results, and says "see I told you so". What are we in Jr. High?