Tyreke is Lebron of PGs

[steelevt]

Your frontline combination of starters of Dalembert and Cousins has been ridiculed to death before by "professional basketball coaches" in this board. I wonder what they have to say now that it is being brought-up by a moderator. Goodluck with this idea.

i dont think the frontline of dally and cousins is horrible but against some teams it might not work. i know everyone seems to want a consistent starting lineup and for PW to stop tinkering with it. but what about interchanging the PF depending on the team? against lengthy slower pf we can keep cousins in but have landry against faster pf (thats if landry can get back to where he was last season). isnt this the point of having an abundance at the frontline? to have the ability to use their strengths when needed

C- Dalembert
PF- Cousins
SF- Omri
Sg- Cisco
PG- Reke

against teams like SA, LA (if they have gasol and bynum), houston etc. teams with bigger, slower c and pf that post up

and

C- Dalembert
PF- Landry
SF- Omri
Sg- Cisco
PG- Reke

dallas, phoenix, utah or other teams that have either a fast big man or one that can shoot 3s that might bring cousins away from the basket

 

[Kingsguy881]

Agree with the topic and theory -- if we can ever get somebody at SG that forces opposing teams to guard Reke with their PGs, it will be a complete slaughter. Teams will still collapse, but they are gonig to be under serious threat on virtually every possession and the whole defenses will have to bend to cover our great player and it will make it much easier for the rest. Now I did understand the rationale of having Beno there for the extra ballhandler/creater, and he and Reke really played well together last year, and it hasn't been disastrous this year. But Beno hasn't been able to provide spacing at all this season (shooting .178 from 3pt land), his sievelike defense is really becoming a larger concern as we try to take that next step forward, and his presence abslutely does provide too easy of an out for opposing teams who get free pass to sick their elite SG/SF defenders on Reke every night. Its bad strategy.

Thing is though, particularly when you are talking about a Omri/Landry (for whatever reason)/Dalembert front line, you are absolutely going to need extra passing from that SG spot. Cisco has shown occasional flashes of passing, but never in a significant run the offense sort of way. It really is too bad Igoudala is not a better shooter, or I would be a major advocate for getting him and making him the SG. It would be an impossible quandry for teams starting 6'1" PGs to handle.

Thing is, I think I CAN produce a starting lineup that works with Reke back there alone as the PG. If I had to make a list of major players who I think Reke can create enough for on offense, the top of the list would be Dalembert (the alley oops and dump off passes are looking good), Cousins (can create on his own), Cisco (corner threes), Omri (corner threes). On the other hand guys like Landry feel stale with Reke, JT = yes maybe, but generally don't want him creating too much himself, Donte works, but he's far out of the rotation now. Anyway:

C- Dalembert
PF- Cousins
SF- Omri
Sg- Cisco
PG- RekeAnd I bet that works offensively, and plenty of scrap and length on defense. You get the extra playmaking from Cisco and Cousins, you've got your best shooters around Reke and Cousins. You've got 4 scrappy defenders and one Cousins. Weaknesses are Reke has to chase quick PGs, and Cousins has to guard PFs. But I think that works offensively, and it creates real issues for opposing teams. Cisco may not post PGs up, but he can shoot at will over a 6'1" defender. Would love to see what happened. And would love to have Beno coming off the bench running pick and rolls with Landry and JT etc.

I got beat to the punch lol. Great minds and all.

 

[Kingsguy881]

i dont think the frontline of dally and cousins is horrible but against some teams it might not work. i know everyone seems to want a consistent starting lineup and for PW to stop tinkering with it. but what about interchanging the PF depending on the team? against lengthy slower pf we can keep cousins in but have landry against faster pf (thats if landry can get back to where he was last season). isnt this the point of having an abundance at the frontline? to have the ability to use their strengths when needed

C- Dalembert
PF- Cousins
SF- Omri
Sg- Cisco
PG- Reke

against teams like SA, LA (if they have gasol and bynum), houston etc. teams with bigger, slower c and pf that post up

and

C- Dalembert
PF- Landry
SF- Omri
Sg- Cisco
PG- Rekedallas, phoenix, utah or other teams that have either a fast big man or one that can shoot 3s that might bring cousins away from the basket

I would rather put somebody long against those kinds of teams. I'm no longer a believer in Landry as a starter. I would rather start Donte at the 4 against teams that spread the offense than landry. He plays NO defense whatsoever and grabs even fewer boards.

 

[steelevt]

I would rather put somebody long against those kinds of teams. I'm no longer a believer in Landry as a starter. I would rather start Donte at the 4 against teams that spread the offense than landry. He plays NO defense whatsoever and grabs even fewer boards.

ok but you get the point. being able to have cousins in the lineup against bigger, slower, post up guys and someone else (whoever it may be) against the smaller, faster shooting pf. basically im saying the lineup that you and brick have in mind isnt the disaster that some might think, as long as we interchange the pf to show off their strenghts and eliminate their weakness

 

[Gliesian]

If Lebron truly is an omega male, then I don't want Tyreke to be like that. I agree it doesn't work. However, doesn't Lebron have a ton of assists? Maybe Wade and Bosh should suck it up and not let their egos spiral into oblivion.

On to the tangent: the drive and dish works well, I like it. Still, I would like Beno to start because when he's not on the floor our players seem to take jumpers with an opponent right in their face- totally unnaceptable.

Finally: Am I the only one who wants Jason Thomspon to get WAY more playing time?

 

[Kingsguy881]

ok but you get the point. being able to have cousins in the lineup against bigger, slower, post up guys and someone else (whoever it may be) against the smaller, faster shooting pf. basically im saying the lineup that you and brick have in mind isnt the disaster that some might think, as long as we interchange the pf to show off their strenghts and eliminate their weakness

Oh yeah I got your point. I agree. I just no longer think Landry can be the starting anything on a winning team. I think Landry is a specialist best suited to coming in and providing an immediate offensive boost. A spark. He is not someone I want going up against the Tim Duncans, Lamar Odoms, ZBos of the world. He just gets HAMMERED. Toronto was fine, Reggie Evans ain't doing crap anyway. But other teams is just asking for a beating.

 

[hrdboild]

Finally: Am I the only one who wants Jason Thomspon to get WAY more playing time?

You're not the only one. I'd prefer that he were starting over Landry right now and playing at least 30 minutes. He makes his mistakes, but he's at least productive when he's out there.

 

[Lockehead]

This is such nonsense. Lebron didn't impede the Cavs' chemistry and chances at a championship. This whole real PG nonsense is just that... Nonsense. The last team to win with a "real" PG was the show time lakers. The Cavs didn't win because Lebron didn't have another star next to him.

You dont think Lebron playing the point makes it hard for the team to develop good chemistry? The thing is that hes not a real point, hes a sf with handling ability. He doesnt get all of his teammates involved in running the offense. I suspect if Lebron just stuck to playing the 3 position while a true point took over the pg position, then the rest of his teammates will know exactly what their role is and the position that they are playing. This would develop their chemistry and the team will know exactly what positions are lacking, and its easier to work together on both ends of the floor. Lebron wouldve been a beast at the 3, but the fact that he was playing the 1 is unorthodox and i believe it really does cause his teammates to second guess what he will do and what they themselves should be doing. When you have a superstar scorer like Lebron running the point it leaves the team operating at less than prime chemistry. the thing about having a solid team is having chemistry meaning knowing exactly what they are doing and the role they have on the team. I think lebron is an example of somebody who has extraordinary talents but has become way too accustomed to controlling the ball (cavs coaching staff as enablers?) when what he should had been doing is beasting on the 3 position while having a real pg run the offense.. I dont think he has even learned to play well without ball, helping his other teamates find their shot or getting into position for his own. I just dont want to see Tyreke go down the same path if he is really a SG rather than a PG.

 

[cuad]

LeBron plays PG because he has better vision than 99% of players in the NBA... He's not only a scorer; but a Magic Johnson type player and Pat Riley should know better than anyone what to do with that. (Give him Kareem, lol.)

 

[Lockehead]

Sometimes i think his vision is suspect, maybe hes so big that hed have trouble having good court awareness while protecting the ball. A true point could make plays in traffic given their relatively small size and ability to protect/move the ball without getting it picked off. I will have to see more of him this year to really see how he plays with some star players on his team, and whether or not he can really get them involved (and if they can play off of him).

 

[bajaden]

Your frontline combination of starters of Dalembert and Cousins has been ridiculed to death before by "professional basketball coaches" in this board. I wonder what they have to say now that it is being brought-up by a moderator. Goodluck with this idea.

I'm not sure it wouldn't work. Cousins and Whiteside played very well together in summer league. They seemed to have very good chemistry on defense. Cousins would always take away the baseline from his opponet and turn him into the basket where Whiteside was waiting for him. Of course there are ways to defeat that, but its a good place to start when you have a good shotblocker at your disposal. This would of course make Thompson more valuable in case you got both your starters in foul trouble.

 

[bajaden]

Are some of you guys on drugs? Some of you are calling LeBron a failure in Cleveland? Why? Because he didn't win a championship? All he did was take a mediocre team talent wise and carry them on his back to the playoffs every stinking year and into the NBA championship game as well. If thats a failure, then I certainly hope Evans is capable of failing the same way. Take some time and compare the personnel on the Lakers to Cleveland's personnel. There is no comparsion. The Lakers are a superior team up and down the roster. But LeBron was able to carry his team for all the years he was there. Now you may not like him for various reasons, but there's no denying his abilities. And to call him a failure borders on stupidity.

 

[UK_King]

lebron averaged something like 26 points in his second year.

He takes over games (maybe not so far this year because he's deferring to wade) but thats what superstars do; they're not afraid to put the team on their back.

 

[Asaf]

Are some of you guys on drugs? Some of you are calling LeBron a failure in Cleveland? Why? Because he didn't win a championship? All he did was take a mediocre team talent wise and carry them on his back to the playoffs every stinking year and into the NBA championship game as well. If thats a failure, then I certainly hope Evans is capable of failing the same way. Take some time and compare the personnel on the Lakers to Cleveland's personnel. There is no comparsion. The Lakers are a superior team up and down the roster. But LeBron was able to carry his team for all the years he was there. Now you may not like him for various reasons, but there's no denying his abilities. And to call him a failure borders on stupidity.

LeBron did not fail as far as his performance as a player, but he did fail as a leader. If you are comparing the Lakers and Cleveland rosters, you might want to consider that everyone on the Lakers actually got better as a player during his time on that team. With LeBron in Cleveland, it was exactly the opposite - everyone was defering to him (and that includes the coaching staff and FO) to the point where they reduced themselves to scrubs, not being able to step up when LeBron choked in the playoffs. I don't care how talented you are - not even Michael Jordan won a championship on his own, and Lebron is no MJ. LeBron did not fail by missing shots or not taking rebounds or dishing assists. He failed by taking that team hostage. He failed by dictating personnel moves and then complaining that his supporting staff wasn't good enough when he tripped over his own dribble against Boston. He failed by separating himself from the team on road trips, having a VIP section for him and his buddies while his teammates were left out. He failed by allowing himself to not join the team on the flight back in order to party in a random city after a road game, and by yelling at people to pick up his dirty towels off the floor. He failed by never allowing himself to play off the ball and let others initiate the offense occasionally, because of his ego. He can put up triple doubles all he wants, but unless he changes the way he thinks about himself and his surroundings (which I seriously doubt will happen at his age and status), he will retire as a failure. Miami may win a ring or two when Boston and the Lakers run out of feul, and there's a vacuum waiting to be exploited, but it will only be a big achievement in the eyes of his yes-men, and himself, of course. The rest of the world will eventually view him as a failure, because with his actualy basketball abilities he should have dominated this league for at least a decade. Too bad he doesn't have the personality to help him cash in on his talent.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Are some of you guys on drugs? Some of you are calling LeBron a failure in Cleveland? Why? Because he didn't win a championship? All he did was take a mediocre team talent wise and carry them on his back to the playoffs every stinking year and into the NBA championship game as well. If thats a failure, then I certainly hope Evans is capable of failing the same way. Take some time and compare the personnel on the Lakers to Cleveland's personnel. There is no comparsion. The Lakers are a superior team up and down the roster. But LeBron was able to carry his team for all the years he was there. Now you may not like him for various reasons, but there's no denying his abilities. And to call him a failure borders on stupidity.

Of course there's no denying his abilities, but the way that team played (which is based around the way LeBron plays) doesn't win championships. One great scorer dominating the ball and kicking out to shooters is not a championship level offense.

 

[Uncia03]

LeBron did not fail as far as his performance as a player, but he did fail as a leader. If you are comparing the Lakers and Cleveland rosters, you might want to consider that everyone on the Lakers actually got better as a player during his time on that team. With LeBron in Cleveland, it was exactly the opposite - everyone was defering to him (and that includes the coaching staff and FO) to the point where they reduced themselves to scrubs, not being able to step up when LeBron choked in the playoffs. I don't care how talented you are - not even Michael Jordan won a championship on his own, and Lebron is no MJ. LeBron did not fail by missing shots or not taking rebounds or dishing assists. He failed by taking that team hostage. He failed by dictating personnel moves and then complaining that his supporting staff wasn't good enough when he tripped over his own dribble against Boston. He failed by separating himself from the team on road trips, having a VIP section for him and his buddies while his teammates were left out. He failed by allowing himself to not join the team on the flight back in order to party in a random city after a road game, and by yelling at people to pick up his dirty towels off the floor. He failed by never allowing himself to play off the ball and let others initiate the offense occasionally, because of his ego. He can put up triple doubles all he wants, but unless he changes the way he thinks about himself and his surroundings (which I seriously doubt will happen at his age and status), he will retire as a failure. Miami may win a ring or two when Boston and the Lakers run out of feul, and there's a vacuum waiting to be exploited, but it will only be a big achievement in the eyes of his yes-men, and himself, of course. The rest of the world will eventually view him as a failure, because with his actualy basketball abilities he should have dominated this league for at least a decade. Too bad he doesn't have the personality to help him cash in on his talent.

It's clear that these comments are made by someone who doesn't like LeBron James. You can call anything a failure, regardless of whether it's true or not. So if you want to label LBJ as a failure in Cleveland, go ahead, but I think the only people who will actually agree with you are those who have something against him as a person.

LeBron made Cleveland relevant, and with his depature they will now be irrelevant again. That is what happens when your team loses the best player on the planet for nothing.

In watching the Heat this year, it's clear that LeBron is the best player on that team, and he's doing it by being a distributor until it becomes clear that they need his scoring punch.

As to the actual premise of this thread:

Garcia should be starting next to Tyreke. His defense is infinitely better than Beno's as is his outside shot. I think that we'd not be getting into such holes if we had a Tyreke/Garcia defensive pairing as opposed to a Tyreke/Beno pairing to start the game.

I also agree that Landry should not be starting.
At this point in time, I'd be willing to experiment with having Cousins/Dalembert at the 4/5 position. I think we'd get killed defensively when playing against stretch 4's (Lewis, Green, ect.) so I think going into those games you either start Greene/Thompson instead of Cousins, or be ready to have a quick hook on Cousins if things go awry defensively.

But I think moving both Landry and Beno to the bench would help this team.

 

[bajaden]

Of course there's no denying his abilities, but the way that team played (which is based around the way LeBron plays) doesn't win championships. One great scorer dominating the ball and kicking out to shooters is not a championship level offense.

I think the point I was trying to make is that LeBron didn't have the teammates available to depend on the same way Kobe does on the Lakers. Come one here. Does anyone think that the Lakers wouldn't win a championship if you switched LeBron with Kobe? I watch a lot of basketball and I saw plenty of games where LeBron tried to set up his teammates. Don't you think the team might have played differently if he had Pau Gasol and lamar Odom out there with him. I guess we'll find out this year won't we?

 

[Asaf]

I think the point I was trying to make is that LeBron didn't have the teammates available to depend on the same way Kobe does on the Lakers. Come one here. Does anyone think that the Lakers wouldn't win a championship if you switched LeBron with Kobe? I watch a lot of basketball and I saw plenty of games where LeBron tried to set up his teammates. Don't you think the team might have played differently if he had Pau Gasol and lamar Odom out there with him. I guess we'll find out this year won't we?

That's the thing - it's not just about setting up players. Iverson was the team leader in assists in his stint in Detroit. Does that mean he was not a selfish player? Of course he was. They kicked him off the team because of his excessive selfishness. It's easy to rack up assists when the ball is constantly in your hands. LeBron has the ability to beat most NBA teams almost on his own, nobody is disputing that, but winning a championship alone? No way. If LeBron and Kobe switched teams and the Lakers switched to the LeBron offense, they would've been beaten by Boston too. No doubt about it in my mind. Lucky for Kobe, he has had Phil Jackson as a coach for enough seasons to win 5 rings. If Kobe took the Lakers hostage the way LeBron did with Cleveland, The Kings would've won that championship in 2002 despite the refs. If the Cavs had a decent coach and FO that didn't defer to LeBron so much to the point where it became ridiculous, perhaps LeBron would've matured and had a few rings by now. At this point, it looks like it may be too late. As for Miami, before they can win a ring they will need to put LeBron in his place (not allow him to be the one who forces them to pull the trigger on Spoelstra, for example), and perhaps pull of a Laker-type trade that will land them a PG and center who are not jokes in black jerseys.

 

[Lockehead]

I think the point I was trying to make is that LeBron didn't have the teammates available to depend on the same way Kobe does on the Lakers. Come one here. Does anyone think that the Lakers wouldn't win a championship if you switched LeBron with Kobe? I watch a lot of basketball and I saw plenty of games where LeBron tried to set up his teammates. Don't you think the team might have played differently if he had Pau Gasol and lamar Odom out there with him. I guess we'll find out this year won't we?

The difference is that Kobe doesnt try to run the offense. He doesnt need total control of the offense in order for him to be dominant. He doesnt try to play point guard even if he is a constant scoring threat, and i can imagine kobe having better ball handling and playmaking than lebron does. He sticks to the position that he is supposed to play, and from here, it makes it easier for his teammates to play their own positions on both end. It makes it easier for the entire team to get better as its easier to judge where the flaws are. This is how i think the lakers were able to build a championship team around kobe.
Also, with kobe not having to dominate the ball, you can see that he has learned to play without the ball pretty well by getting into positions for his own shot, helping to free up his teammates, in general just knowing how to play with the team. Lebron, being the dominant ball handler he is, hasnt learned to play effectively without the ball within the team offense. This is something that i hope doesnt catch on with Tyreke if he is more SG than PG.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think the point I was trying to make is that LeBron didn't have the teammates available to depend on the same way Kobe does on the Lakers. Come one here. Does anyone think that the Lakers wouldn't win a championship if you switched LeBron with Kobe? I watch a lot of basketball and I saw plenty of games where LeBron tried to set up his teammates. Don't you think the team might have played differently if he had Pau Gasol and lamar Odom out there with him. I guess we'll find out this year won't we?

I don't think they would flow as well because Kobe does know how to play in a real offensive system. He's had to play second fiddle to Shaq and he's had Phil's tutelage for several years, he's grown a lot as a result. That is not the case for LeBron, there's a lot he'd have to adjust to. It's possible that they'd still win titles, and I'm sure they'd at least still be a very good team, but I doubt if they would have the same deep playoff success as they have had. LeBron has yet to prove he can mesh with other big scoring options. That's not really my point though, my point is that the style he and the Cavs played does not cut it when it comes to getting championships. I hope that's not what we end up doing with Evans because if it didn't work with LeBron, it's not going to work with Evans.

 

[Lockehead]

Does anyone think Tyreke should be playing SG?

I know he played as pg in college, and in his highschool days, but after watching him in the past year and the current season, im getting the feeling that itd be better for both himself and our team if he played SG..

Its already established that hes not a pure point. Tho he does have great handles, his play making leaves a lot to be learned or desired. Also his size limits his ability to play point as he is unusually large and can hinder his court vision and ability to make plays all around the court.

Also, the thing about that made Tyreke so special wasnt the fact that he had great point guard skills, it was because of his extraordinary ability to score. Many teams have trouble stopping Tyreke, so i imagine most SGs wouldnt be able to stop him if they were matched up against him. With his improved jumpshot and range, itd be even harder for him to be stopped.

If you compare him to other point guards such as curry, jennings, rondo, paul, and others, many of them are smaller than Tyreke. This allows them to have great court vision, running around in the offense, around the perimeter, in traffic while having great control of the ball due to their small size and mobility. Tyreke's size may limit his ability to be a great pg.

He has just the right body to play the 2 position. Hes a legit 6'6 220-225 guard, which is kobe, roy, jordan size. His driving and finishing ability is unmatched in this league. Even though he was a mismatch for other pg's to guard, he will still be a handful to deal with if he plays sg.

What if he does play the 2 position? His main objective would be to score. I dont think we've ever really seen what Tyreke can do if his sole objective is to score instead of trying to run the offense. Are we hindering his potential by making him play point? How far can Tyreke really go if he plays the 2? Maybe he can drop 30 each night while still developing his passing and kickouts?? If he continues playing PG, im sure his assists numbers will go up, but is that really what we want? Do we want to mold him into becoming a great PG or should we let him develop doing what he does best while at the same time refining his all around skills?

 

[Uncia03]

Does anyone think Tyreke should be playing SG?

I know he played as pg in college, and in his highschool days, but after watching him in the past year and the current season, im getting the feeling that itd be better for both himself and our team if he played SG..

Its already established that hes not a pure point. Tho he does have great handles, his play making leaves a lot to be learned or desired. Also his size limits his ability to play point as he is unusually large and can hinder his court vision and ability to make plays all around the court.

The whole debate as to what position Tyreke plays will probably never end. With that said, tonight should be a perfect example as to why we should be pairing Tyreke with a larger guard instead of playing Beno next to him.

Nash destroyed Beno tonight, and Tyreke was guarded by the Sun's best defender all night long.
This would have been a very different game if the Suns had to have Nash play defense against Tyreke.

Let me ask you something. If Tyreke was on another team and played against the Kings, what do you think he'd do if he had the opportunity to be guarded by Beno?
Tyreke would demolish Beno, and thank the Kings for the opportunity.

From both an offensive and defensive perspective, the Kings win if the match-up is:
Tyreke vs. Nash

The Kings lose if the match-up is:
Nash vs. Beno
Tyreke vs. Sun's best defender


Now I bolded part of the quote where you talk about his play-making not being good, and how his size hinders his floor vision and ability to make plays.
You do realize that size helps with floor vision, right?
And your statements are coming off of a game where he had 9 assists and 2 turn-overs.
And the game before that he had 9 assists and 2 turn-overs. (I'm not counting the 3 charges)
So if he's almost reaching double digit assists while limiting his turn-overs and you consider his ability to make plays to be poor, imagine how good he'll be once we can force the opposition to actually put their small point-guard on him.

Bottom line is that he is terrible off the ball. He doesn't move well with-out the ball, he isn't a good spot-up shooter, and his first, second, third, and fourth instinct once he gets the ball is to put it on the floor and make a play.
Because that is his instincts, if you take the ball out of his hands he becomes ineffective.
And if you put a 'pure' point-guard out on the floor with him, you are just allowing the other team to increase their defense against Tyreke, while minimizing his style of play.

So, I don't want to see smaller guards out on the floor with Tyreke. And if we continue to play Tyreke as a PG and he continues to give us 9 assist, 2 TO games, I'll be completely satisfied with his ability to create plays and set up his teammates.

 

[Section 101]

Nash destroyed Beno tonight, and Tyreke was guarded by the Sun's best defender all night long.
This would have been a very different game if the Suns had to have Nash play defense against Tyreke.

Wrong. They would still put their better defender on Evans unless the other player was better.

 

[Bricklayer]

Wrong. They would still put their better defender on Evans unless the other player was better.

They might, but then that other player becomes the punisher.

reke and a full sized SG wiht strength/forcefulness is just nightmarish. teams can choose to either a) get the bad mismatch of Reke killing their PG while they get the solid match of SG on SG, or b) get the bad mismatch of their PG guarding a forceful SG (and here forceful should mean either post game or game to the hoop), while their SG gets all he can handle and then some with Reke. If its not an instant get out of jail card for Reke, its a get out of jail card for the SG. Either way teams can't handle it, and some of the greatest teams in NBA history (Showtime Lakers, Harper/Jordan Bulls) have exploited that sort of advanatge.

 

[Lockehead]

I understand it will definitely give us a mismatch in every possession. But i guess what im most concerned about is the fact that Tyreke will be playing pg. We know that he can score probably better than 95% of the league, he is virtually unstoppable in isolated plays. Is it best to utilize that talent in play making/playing point guard? Are we letting his abilities go to waste / be underdeveloped? As good as he is at playing point, will he be much better off, not just to himself but also to our team, being a dangerous scoring threat?

Even though Tyreke would be a mismatch against a smaller point guard, he will still be a mismatch if he is matched up against a SG because of his size, physicality, and amazing talent. Teams will still have to load up their defenses against him. This doesnt mean that he will become a blackhole within the offense. Tyreke is smarter than that, he knows to pass when he doesnt have anything going for him. It just means that he will be able to do what he does best, while still learning to play with his teammates.

The point guard position really is special compared to other positions. It doesnt matter if you have the best talent at all the other positions because if you dont have a point guard who can incorporate the entire team then that talent will go to waste. I imagine if Tyreke is matched up with a smaller point guard, then he will aim to exploit that mismatch in every possession. If he plays point he will have the ball in his hands, so his first instinct will be to go right at the smaller point guard. Teams load up defenses on him, and then something reminiscent comes to mind. We have a team of role players built around Tyrekes mismatch at the pg (at least while tyreke is on the floor). Kind of reminds me of Lebron and the cavs? Is this really the best way we can utilize Tyreke?

I guess my biggest gripe is in Tyreke's ability to run an entire offense as he is not a pure point, but a natural scorer. Rather than have him split up his duties, would it benefit our team more if we have a pure point who can get the other teammates involved, controlling the tempo of our offense, and we let Tyreke exploit his scoring abilities while also learning to play within a team setting?

Edit: Oh, and i want to add. I think the reason for Tyreke seeming a bit passive and unaggressive at times is because of his job of making plays, when his natural instinct is to score. He is confused about his priority, whether or not he should set up his teammates, or if he should try to score.

 

[KingsCitizen]

This team is not a championship team yet. So we need all the advantages we can to win.

 

[ParniValjak]

This PURE PG talk has been shown up amany times before. Lets look at the Lakers as an example, Fisher is not a pure PG and he doesn't set up the offence. His role is to bring it up the court, give it to Kobe or Gasol or Odom and go and sit in the corner.

If you look at the teams that have actually won it all, majority of them did not have a PURE PG as you are suggesting.

 

[Asaf]

This PURE PG talk has been shown up amany times before. Lets look at the Lakers as an example, Fisher is not a pure PG and he doesn't set up the offence. His role is to bring it up the court, give it to Kobe or Gasol or Odom and go and sit in the corner.

If you look at the teams that have actually won it all, majority of them did not have a PURE PG as you are suggesting.

Yes, but like someone else pointed out before, the fact that he has the ball and gets to decide whether to give it to Kobe, Gasol, or Odom, enables Kobe to play off the ball, diversify his game, and make the Lakers' offense so much less predictable than the LeBron offense.

I just think, and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that, that it's a horrible idea to have the guy who initiates the offense also be the #1 offensive option. It makes the offense stagnant and predictable, not to mention that it's bad for the team chemistry, as players tend to get frustrated when they run up and down the court several times without touching the ball.

 

[DeMoN]

Tyreke is not the LeBron of PGs and I'm glad he is not. The LeBron system has failed miserably in Cleveland, and now that first signs of failure are appearing in Miami, LeBron will gradually be exposed as what he really is - an incredibly talented basketball player and a physical freak of nature who does not allow other players (and coaches) to develop around him. Bosh already looks like a scrub, and Wade will have big nights but will discover what it's like to be inconsistent like mortal basketball players. The other scrubs on that team are not even worth mentioning. The Kings should not strive to make Tyreke their LeBron. If Tyreke wants a role model he should look call Magic Johnson (yea, I know he is a Laker...) and ask "What should I do?"...

Ohh man.. you are crazy. If you don't want LeBron on your team.. wow. He's the best player in the league, and if he had Kobe's support, they would have won 75 games and swept the playoffs.

 

[Asaf]

Ohh man.. you are crazy. If you don't want LeBron on your team.. wow. He's the best player in the league, and if he had Kobe's support, they would have won 75 games and swept the playoffs.

If you read through the thread you would realize that your comment is redundant, since others have made it before you and there was a response and further discussion of those points. In any case, if I'm crazy, so are a lot of other people on this board because quite a few of them agreed with me. And for the record, Tyreke is not LeBron, and the issue of LeBron coming to the Kings has never come up. It's the LeBron offensive system I was talking about, and if it failed with LeBron, you can be sure it will fail even more miserably with Tyreke.