Tyreke is Lebron of PGs

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.

I should explain this more.

We don't have the Lakers salary, and we won't ever have it. We can't have our best player be a distributor, because distributors don't win games for you against the Boston defense. If Tyreke is going to be our Magic, we aren't going to have a Abdul Jabar. If you are a small market team, you put all your eggs into a scorer, someone who can take over the game, play defense, ect. We're not going to have 3 hall of famers on our roster.
 
I should explain this more.

We don't have the Lakers salary, and we won't ever have it. We can't have our best player be a distributor, because distributors don't win games for you against the Boston defense. If Tyreke is going to be our Magic, we aren't going to have a Abdul Jabar. If you are a small market team, you put all your eggs into a scorer, someone who can take over the game, play defense, ect. We're not going to have 3 hall of famers on our roster.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Here are the options I can come up for interpeting your post:

1. We will never have a quality squad, therefore we should put all our eggs in a star that will get us attention but never win a championship for us.

2. We are a small market team, therefore we can only afford one good player.

3. We can win a championship with Tyreke as Lebron, and everyone else as the scrubs around him (if it didn't work for Lebron, how would it work for Tyreke?)

4. Our best case scenario is mediocrity and that's what we should strive for.

I'm sorry, but none of those make sense to me. Perhaps you meant something else. Please enlighten me.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Here are the options I can come up for interpeting your post:

1. We will never have a quality squad, therefore we should put all our eggs in a star that will get us attention but never win a championship for us.

2. We are a small market team, therefore we can only afford one good player.

3. We can win a championship with Tyreke as Lebron, and everyone else as the scrubs around him (if it didn't work for Lebron, how would it work for Tyreke?)

4. Our best case scenario is mediocrity and that's what we should strive for.

I'm sorry, but none of those make sense to me. Perhaps you meant something else. Please enlighten me.

It would probably be in our best interest for our best player, and potentially most expensive player to not be a distributor.
 
In response to you saying Tyreke should call Magic.

I'm sure you can see how I could miss that context...

To clarify, I don't think the deficiencies in the LeBron offense come from LeBron's lack of distribution. LeBron is a very good distributor and a willing passer. But I'll ask you: Do you really think that a team that strives to win a championship at some point can rely on an one-dimensional offensive scheme that is initiated by the same player 100% of the time? And I'll also ask you again: If Cleveland was unable to win it with Lebron, why do you think we can win it in the same system with Tyreke playing the role of Lebron (or perhaps you think that we shouldn't kid ourselves with the idea of winning a championship in the future)?
 
Cleveland didn't lose by having LeBron, they lost by how they surounded him and coached that team. If we get better player support with better schemes and coaching it may make up the defiancies of Tyreke being weaker than Lebron.

I fail to see how using Lebron the way they did in Cleveland failed considering they were instant title contenders by getting him, and might have won the whole thing if Boston didn't go into God mode and the Lakers were the Lakers.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think you should read the whole thread before engaging in this discussion because all the points you bring up have already been discussed and there is no point of repeating everything that's been said.
 
Asaf is a plain Lebron hater. We better change this threads topic to Tyreke is MJ of PGs so he won't get confused. But then he might focus on MJ's attitude problems again instead of the talent.

The main point of this thread is to suggest having a starting lineup with Tyreke as the smallest man for our roster on the court. He may not be your highlight reel passer, but this will give our teams an early advantage against any NBA backcourt.
 
Asaf has made some good points.

Lebron may be the best individual player in the league right now. But in terms of playing as a championship level teammate, he still has a lot to learn.
 
Asaf has made some good points.

Lebron may be the best individual player in the league right now. But in terms of playing as a championship level teammate, he still has a lot to learn.

You can totally judge a championship level teammate when while he was in the championship his second option was Big Z.
 
A TON of great teams have had their #1 offensive options also be their main offensive intiators. I mean a TON. That's not a well thought out argument at all. And we are talking PGs (Payton's Sonics anyone? Anybody heard of Isiah Thomas? Hey, how about that guy named MAGIC JOHNSON in the second half of the 80s after Kareem went into decline?, SGs of the Wade/Kobe/MJ mold, SFs like LeBron and Bird etc. Heck Webb was our main offensive initiator during our peak years, and he was the PF. Heck Chamberlain even did it one year as a center. It is an enormouosly successful tactic to put the ball in your best, most dangerous player's hands and let him go to work.

The problem with the LeBron system was not that putting ther ball in his hands was a bad tactic, it was a) well yes, he absolurtely did not have worthy teammates; and b) and more importantly for this argument, they ran it too much. Almost exclusively. Its a tactic that has won title after title, but the guy needs help and other people aroudn him who can share the burden. Always. Its not a cut on Reke, nor on LeBron uunless he demanded the offense be run the way it was. Bird can initiate...but put Ainge and DJ next to him and now you have options. Give Payton Detlef Shrempf and Hersey hawkins to share the load. Give Zeke Joe Dumars as another guy who can initiate, and Vinnie Johnson off the bench to keep two guys ont he floor at all times. Have MJ be the mian guy, but Pippen brings it up, and Harper and Kukoc all chip in as well. Kobe starts winning championships "on his own" once they got Odom, Pau, now even Artest around him to share the load.

This is why I was particular about a suggested lineup that could work with Reke and no Beno. Right now we are using Beno as our Ainge/DJ/Pippen whatever. he's the second ball mover that all great lead scorer/initiators need. But he limits us in other ways, and that is the task in figuring out how to move him to the bench -- how do you keep the ball moving and keep extra ballahandling out there next to your main guy? My solution given our roster is you use Cisco at SG and Cousins at PF. Three options as offensive initiators. And is your main initiator still your main scorer? Sure. Just like it so often has been in NBA history. But you need to mix it up a bit, and need to have other initiators to keep things moving. As long as you do. And as long as you keep adding pieces like that going into the future, then there is nothing wrong with Reke as mian initiator and main scorer. The problem with Cleveland's offense was Mike Brown and the front office. It was systemic, ignoring the need for supplemental balhandlers and intiiators and calling LeBron's number almost every time down the floor. Ot let me amend that, calling hsi number in simple siso sets almsot every time down the floor. LeBron is such a good passer that if they had actually run a real offense, I think he might have been able to play the lead guard/forward in it and make it hum. But they never did.
 
Last edited:
If that path leads us to start winning 60 games a season and playing in the WCFs we can worry about mixing it up then.

I agree with you completely.. i fail to see how becoming the Cavs of old is a bad thing. I personally believe coaching was their downfall, and not having a legit C, which we may have with Cousins.
 
I absolutely support Tyreke being the initiator. He is our most dangerous weapon and we should use him as such. If he plays the 2, it does not mean that he wont be the initiator.

I cant speak in the 80s and 90s because i was not around at that time. But i have seen alot of kobe and jordan, and this is who i compare Tyreke to. Kobe and Jordan didnt play point guard, they were able to utilize the weapon that they were by playing the 2 position. Im sure if they played Point guard, they could be good at it, but they would not had flourished into the players that they are now. This is what i am saying with Tyreke. I think Tyreke is as dangerous as Jordan and Kobe (of course not as refined) and should be playing within the offense that they played/ are playing. However, we are using as a point guard and that moves him further from being utilized in the same way as Jordan and Kobe, and more into how Lebron was used in the Cavs.

The way im reading it, pairing Tyreke with a larger SG like Garcia and Cousins at PF will give us several initiators within the offense, which will relieve Tyreke from being the primary ball mover / play maker allowing him to be more free to score?
 
After tonights game, Id say Tyreke was at his best when he was trying to SCORE instead of making plays. Recall the first half. Tyreke was virtually non existent. He was trying to make plays for his teammates and it was not working. Then look at the 4th quarter when Head and Tyreke was on the floor together. Head took over as playmaker, and Tyreke finally started focusing on scoring, which brought us back to life and gave us a fighting chance at cutting the lead. We REALLY need to start utilizing him as the scorer. Having him make plays is hindering his development and potential which also hurts our team.
 
Cleveland didn't lose by having LeBron, they lost by how they surounded him and coached that team. If we get better player support with better schemes and coaching it may make up the defiancies of Tyreke being weaker than Lebron.

I fail to see how using Lebron the way they did in Cleveland failed considering they were instant title contenders by getting him, and might have won the whole thing if Boston didn't go into God mode and the Lakers were the Lakers.

60+ wins two years in a row and they failed in the postseason both times. So yeah, if they're good enough to be a great team in the regular season but can't cut it in the playoffs, the culprit is their system, not their roster.
 
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.
Oh please, Fisher's "play making" is the most predictable. Players that initiate the offence for LA are Kobe, Gasol and Odom and of those, Kobe would initiate it 90% of the time. Just because Fisher dribbles it up the court and dumps it in to Kobe and goes to stand in the corner does not mean he is initiating the offence. The only thing he is doing is bringing the ball up the court and giving it to Kobe to initiate the offence.

If thats all you want from a PG then Beno does it million times better than Fisher.
 
If that path leads us to start winning 60 games a season and playing in the WCFs we can worry about mixing it up then.

Evans will never be close to LeBron's dominance so that point doesn't make sense. The type of system failed for LeBron, it failed for Iverson, and that means it will fail even more for Evans. It's a stupid and lazy way to play, and you have to be an elite defensive team to even pull it off to its highest potential.

I don't see a problem with a top scorer being the initiator, but you need ball movement, off-ball play, and multiple options like you pointed out. Evans needs to learn how to play within an offensive scheme instead of just dominating the ball and becoming a one man show. I don't see him becoming some great facilitator or floor general, but he'll get assists because he's a good passer and will have the ball a lot.
 
I do think LeBron is partially responsible for the system they ran, he was right on board with their personnel decisions, and he never matured as a facilitator beyond just being really good at getting bail out assists.
 
Oh please, Fisher's "play making" is the most predictable. Players that initiate the offence for LA are Kobe, Gasol and Odom and of those, Kobe would initiate it 90% of the time. Just because Fisher dribbles it up the court and dumps it in to Kobe and goes to stand in the corner does not mean he is initiating the offence. The only thing he is doing is bringing the ball up the court and giving it to Kobe to initiate the offence.

If thats all you want from a PG then Beno does it million times better than Fisher.

You make it sound like its a bad thing. Beno does not play the same position as Fish. Fish is a pure point. Beno plays combo guard with Tyreke. Big difference and alot less predictable.
 
You make it sound like its a bad thing. Beno does not play the same position as Fish. Fish is a pure point. Beno plays combo guard with Tyreke. Big difference and alot less predictable.

I don't know if there has ever been a more inaccurate statement in the history of the world.
 
Back
Top