rainmaker
Hall of Famer
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.
That wasn't what he said at all.
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.
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.
It would probably be in our best interest for our best player, and potentially most expensive player to not be a distributor.
And how is that related to this thread? Did anyone suggest trading Tyreke for Steve Nash?
In response to you saying Tyreke should call Magic.
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.
What does that have to do with Lebron as a teammate?
Lol ok well, I just dont want to see Tyreke and the kings go down a similar path as Lebron and the cavs.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
I don't know if there has ever been a more inaccurate statement in the history of the world.
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.