Vlade on the Jim Rome show (merged)
- Thread starter Folsom Al
- Start date
Purple Reign
Starter
PROGRAM ALERT: Vlade Divac in studio with Jim Rome to talk about his career
Today from 10-11. I am sure we will hear some good Sacramento Kings talk.
Today from 10-11. I am sure we will hear some good Sacramento Kings talk.
CaminoChaos
Bench
im tuned in and waiting
Bibby_Is_Clutch
Starter
I cant get into 1050... KNBR changed their site i guess.
CaminoChaos
Bench
one of the questions(not exact):
caller: is it adelman or players when it came to defense.
divac: adelman is a great coach. we were an offensive minded team. we scored lots of points. there was not much need for defense.
that what i got out of it. sorry i could give it to you word for word.
i'm sure they'll post the interview here:
http://www.jimrome.com/home.html
thats what i got out of it
caller: is it adelman or players when it came to defense.
divac: adelman is a great coach. we were an offensive minded team. we scored lots of points. there was not much need for defense.
that what i got out of it. sorry i could give it to you word for word.
i'm sure they'll post the interview here:
http://www.jimrome.com/home.html
thats what i got out of it
CaminoChaos
Bench
divac said if the lakers pick up option he will play but if not he will retire.
Bibby_Is_Clutch
Starter
Anything special he said?
Alacron
Bench
I thought it was interesting that Vlade said the chemistry was not there his last year in Sacramento. At least that's what I thought he said.
Rome also asked if there was something else Webber could have done to get the team over the hump, and Vlade replied something like. 'I think he could have. I mean, you can always do more.'
Vlade also said that Bibby is our leader now, along with Peja.
Rome asked whether Vlade accepted that the Lakers were just the better team in 2002, that it just wasn't meant to be because they ran into Shaq and Kobe. Vlade said no, we were the better team, we just didn't have the luck. He then made a joke about how he passed to Horry for the winning shot, but I think he's thinking more about a game 6 kind of "luck."
~~
Rome also asked if there was something else Webber could have done to get the team over the hump, and Vlade replied something like. 'I think he could have. I mean, you can always do more.'
Vlade also said that Bibby is our leader now, along with Peja.
Rome asked whether Vlade accepted that the Lakers were just the better team in 2002, that it just wasn't meant to be because they ran into Shaq and Kobe. Vlade said no, we were the better team, we just didn't have the luck. He then made a joke about how he passed to Horry for the winning shot, but I think he's thinking more about a game 6 kind of "luck."
~~
Purple Reign
Starter
Alacron said:I thought it was interesting that Vlade said the chemistry was not there his last year in Sacramento. At least that's what I thought he said.
Rome also asked if there was something else Webber could have done to get the team over the hump, and Vlade replied something like. 'I think he could have. I mean, you can always do more.'
Vlade also said that Bibby is our leader now, along with Peja.
Rome asked whether Vlade accepted that the Lakers were just the better team in 2002, that it just wasn't meant to be because they ran into Shaq and Kobe. Vlade said no, we were the better team, we just didn't have the luck. He then made a joke about how he passed to Horry for the winning shot, but I think he's thinking more about a game 6 kind of "luck."
~~
I believe he said that the chemistry was not there in Los Angeles last year.
What i got out of the interview was his obvious contradiction whether he was going to play next year. On Napier and Lamb's show about three weeks ago, he was sure that he was not going to play, whether his body was right or not. Today he was more certain that he was going to play if his body held up.
Folsom Al
Starter
Maybe VF Can Merge This with the Other Thread ....
There's another thread over in the KINGS forum ....some of the things Vlade said are there ....
Let's see:
King's are Maloof's team
Laker's are Buss's team
Laker's are Kobe's team to lead3
Gives a tremendous amount of credit to Magic Johnson.
Has a ton of respect for Magic.
Making players around you better (developed passing game)
Team sport (really dislikes selfish players)
Learned alot for rest of Lakers his 1st year in NBA: Pat Riley, AC Green, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper .... rest of guys
Best years in the NBA were in Sacramento
Looked at 1st year in NBA and 1st year in Sacramento as CHALLENGES
FYI - Vlade was one of the FIRST European players to come over to the NBA
Still very much involved in his Summer Basketball Camps
Other comments about interview in other thread ....
Hope this was informative to you all !!!
There's another thread over in the KINGS forum ....some of the things Vlade said are there ....
Let's see:
King's are Maloof's team
Laker's are Buss's team
Laker's are Kobe's team to lead3
Gives a tremendous amount of credit to Magic Johnson.
Has a ton of respect for Magic.
Making players around you better (developed passing game)
Team sport (really dislikes selfish players)
Learned alot for rest of Lakers his 1st year in NBA: Pat Riley, AC Green, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper .... rest of guys
Best years in the NBA were in Sacramento
Looked at 1st year in NBA and 1st year in Sacramento as CHALLENGES
FYI - Vlade was one of the FIRST European players to come over to the NBA
Still very much involved in his Summer Basketball Camps
Other comments about interview in other thread ....
Hope this was informative to you all !!!
John Galt
Starter
2002 was luck?????
Look I am a Kings fan. I was at the WCF in 2002. Stoically sat there while my wife cried while Kobe was knocking down those final free throws in game 7. But the Kings were not the victims of bad luck.
a) It was not luck that the Lakers took game 1 in Arco.
b) Horry's game 4 shot was lucky but certainly clutch. He shoudn't have been standing there, at that moment - but he was... and he knocked down the shot. Vlade had just missed FTs at the other end. bottom line = failure to make free throws and a big time shot by a big time shot maker. Some luck, but not 100% luck.
c) Game 5, right before Bibby made the biggest shot in Kings history - the Kings were recipients of the worst call of the series. The ball was out of bounds off Webber, but the Kings were awarded the ball. This was the luckiest occurrence of the playoffs.
d) Game 6 was one gigantic "make-up call" by Bavetta. Too bad, the Kings were better that night. But all that did was square the injustice from game 5. Funny thing to me is, if the Kings had won that game, everyone would be talking about how the refs gave us game 5 and the series.
e) Game 7, Peja had a chance to knock down a shot.. MUCH easier than Horry's game 4 shot.. to ice the championship. Nothing but air. The Kings shot 53.3% from the line vs 81.8% for the Lakers. The better team won.
Now I think 2002 was a thrill ride.. the Kings were almost as good as basically a legendary 3-peat Lakers team. That should be good enough for people - at least for people grounded in reality. It's too bad people can't enjoy 2002 for what it WAS, instead of crying about, and making excuses about, what it WASN'T.
Look I am a Kings fan. I was at the WCF in 2002. Stoically sat there while my wife cried while Kobe was knocking down those final free throws in game 7. But the Kings were not the victims of bad luck.
a) It was not luck that the Lakers took game 1 in Arco.
b) Horry's game 4 shot was lucky but certainly clutch. He shoudn't have been standing there, at that moment - but he was... and he knocked down the shot. Vlade had just missed FTs at the other end. bottom line = failure to make free throws and a big time shot by a big time shot maker. Some luck, but not 100% luck.
c) Game 5, right before Bibby made the biggest shot in Kings history - the Kings were recipients of the worst call of the series. The ball was out of bounds off Webber, but the Kings were awarded the ball. This was the luckiest occurrence of the playoffs.
d) Game 6 was one gigantic "make-up call" by Bavetta. Too bad, the Kings were better that night. But all that did was square the injustice from game 5. Funny thing to me is, if the Kings had won that game, everyone would be talking about how the refs gave us game 5 and the series.
e) Game 7, Peja had a chance to knock down a shot.. MUCH easier than Horry's game 4 shot.. to ice the championship. Nothing but air. The Kings shot 53.3% from the line vs 81.8% for the Lakers. The better team won.
Now I think 2002 was a thrill ride.. the Kings were almost as good as basically a legendary 3-peat Lakers team. That should be good enough for people - at least for people grounded in reality. It's too bad people can't enjoy 2002 for what it WAS, instead of crying about, and making excuses about, what it WASN'T.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Francisco d'Anconia said:
You forgot that Game 4 would never have come down to that Horry shot had Samaki Walker not been credited with an illegal 3ptr at the buzzer in the first half -- a mistake so bad it resulted in a rules change.
You also forget we played basically the entire series without our #2 offensive weapon, and still made it the closest WCF in history.
We were the better team.
John Galt
Starter
"We were the better team, but...." is a mantra of people who weren't the better team.
The Kings did not win the championship because they missed 14 free throws in game 7. I can't just decide to discount that glaring fact.. I can't decide that "except for missed free throws under pressure, we would have won - so we were better". It's utter bunk.
The Kings were the better team except when it came down to having the #2 offensive weapon knock down a jumper late in game 7 or having ANYBODY shake off the yips to hit a free throw.
"The better team, except.... but...." To me there's no such thing as that.
The Kings did not win the championship because they missed 14 free throws in game 7. I can't just decide to discount that glaring fact.. I can't decide that "except for missed free throws under pressure, we would have won - so we were better". It's utter bunk.
The Kings were the better team except when it came down to having the #2 offensive weapon knock down a jumper late in game 7 or having ANYBODY shake off the yips to hit a free throw.
"The better team, except.... but...." To me there's no such thing as that.
bigbadred00
Starter
Yeah I was going to bring that up Brick. We lose game 4 by what 2? And that shot was blatantly after the buzzer. And we can't forget Peja even with his playoff struggles is a much better player than Hedo although I love both players. Peja wasn't himself. The Kings have never been fully healthy in any of the game 7 which they have lost over the years, which is kind of sad. As we see with other teams, such as the Heat this year, who had all 3 major guards hurt in game 7, and the Mavs in the past and the Lakers last year, and the Suns this year, most teams really struggle without major parts.
In each of the last major runs by any of the title teams, they have avoided the injury bug, something we nor any team that has faltered has not. Title team is not always the best overall team, it's the best healthiest and most lucky team (Spurs haven't been really lucky this year, but they haven't won the title yet, they are slightly lucky that the JJ went down, but that's about it), Something the Kings have never been able to do.
In each of the last major runs by any of the title teams, they have avoided the injury bug, something we nor any team that has faltered has not. Title team is not always the best overall team, it's the best healthiest and most lucky team (Spurs haven't been really lucky this year, but they haven't won the title yet, they are slightly lucky that the JJ went down, but that's about it), Something the Kings have never been able to do.
bigbadred00
Starter
The better team doesn't always win. They usually win, but they don't always win. The Kings might have been a better team, but there were many weird things in that series, which were under our control and out of our control. Your right, we cannot really say "but, or if."
I've heard from many Illinois fans this year that they were the better team, but when UNC beat them, yes UNC was the best team on the court but they were the best team all year long. I guess that argument is kinda true. Kings were the best team all year long, and free throws and level headedness were definitely culprits to the collapse as well as injuries. Reffing was also poor at many times on both sides of the ball.
I've heard from many Illinois fans this year that they were the better team, but when UNC beat them, yes UNC was the best team on the court but they were the best team all year long. I guess that argument is kinda true. Kings were the best team all year long, and free throws and level headedness were definitely culprits to the collapse as well as injuries. Reffing was also poor at many times on both sides of the ball.
John Galt
Starter
OK, how about if we stop playing for the trophy.
Instead, we'll have the sportswriters and coaches vote on a champion at the end of each season? Then we can take into account who was "best", leaving referees and injuries out of it - and just going on pure conjecture about what might have happened say if Peja was on the floor instead of Hedo, or if we just extrapolated average performance from the free throw line instead of actually shooting them with people watching and the trophy on the line?
Under those circumstances, and giving Ralph Nader extra votes of course... the Kings were consensus "best team" of 2002.
When is the parade?
Instead, we'll have the sportswriters and coaches vote on a champion at the end of each season? Then we can take into account who was "best", leaving referees and injuries out of it - and just going on pure conjecture about what might have happened say if Peja was on the floor instead of Hedo, or if we just extrapolated average performance from the free throw line instead of actually shooting them with people watching and the trophy on the line?
Under those circumstances, and giving Ralph Nader extra votes of course... the Kings were consensus "best team" of 2002.
When is the parade?
bigbadred00
Starter
Did I say we should stop playing for the title. All I said is the best teams don't always win the title. The Lakers were also a very good team and you have easily argued how they are better, that's your opinion. The opinion of many kings fans and Vlade himself is the Kings were a better team and just not as lucky as the Lakers. If you don't like that opinion, I don't have a problem with that.
Francisco, how'd the Lakers do without Malone last year? Didn't they struggle versus a good but not great team in Detroit without him. Wasn't Peja one of our better players? Has Hedo ever played that well in the playoffs? I think the results could have been different with Peja in the lineup instead of Hedo. I didn't say they would have been. Hmmmm.....I guess the Kings should overcome every difficultly which other teams have faced with flying colors, please noone wins titles when any major component of the team is out for a number of games in a title series. I guess the Kings are better than that, not really.
I don't have great examples in the NBA of the best team not winning a title. But in other leagues the best team all year long has failed to win titles.
2004 Yankees. 2003 Sox. 2004 Lakers. 2004 Spurs. I know I can think of countless others in NCAA basketball, NCAA football, NFL. I'm not saying the teams that ended up winning did not deserve the title and on the field they were definitely the better team on that day, I'm just saying the best team all year long doesn't have to win the title.
For comparison sake, let's say the Lakers in 2002, went 82-0. Beat everyone 200-0 every game. In game 1 of the 2002 WCF, Shaq goes down and is replaced by Mark Madsen at the 5. The Kings go on to "sweep" the Shaq-less Lakers. Were the Kings the better team or did we benefit from an injury on the Lakers? I know this is an extreme example, but a similar thing happened that year when Peja are arguably 3rd best player in the playoffs went down with a serious injury. Were the Mavs really that good of a team when we lost to them in the 2003 playoffs when Webb went down?
Francisco, how'd the Lakers do without Malone last year? Didn't they struggle versus a good but not great team in Detroit without him. Wasn't Peja one of our better players? Has Hedo ever played that well in the playoffs? I think the results could have been different with Peja in the lineup instead of Hedo. I didn't say they would have been. Hmmmm.....I guess the Kings should overcome every difficultly which other teams have faced with flying colors, please noone wins titles when any major component of the team is out for a number of games in a title series. I guess the Kings are better than that, not really.
I don't have great examples in the NBA of the best team not winning a title. But in other leagues the best team all year long has failed to win titles.
2004 Yankees. 2003 Sox. 2004 Lakers. 2004 Spurs. I know I can think of countless others in NCAA basketball, NCAA football, NFL. I'm not saying the teams that ended up winning did not deserve the title and on the field they were definitely the better team on that day, I'm just saying the best team all year long doesn't have to win the title.
For comparison sake, let's say the Lakers in 2002, went 82-0. Beat everyone 200-0 every game. In game 1 of the 2002 WCF, Shaq goes down and is replaced by Mark Madsen at the 5. The Kings go on to "sweep" the Shaq-less Lakers. Were the Kings the better team or did we benefit from an injury on the Lakers? I know this is an extreme example, but a similar thing happened that year when Peja are arguably 3rd best player in the playoffs went down with a serious injury. Were the Mavs really that good of a team when we lost to them in the 2003 playoffs when Webb went down?
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Francisco d'Anconia said:
Simplistic viewpoint, but nice and easy if you don't have to think about it.
Injuries are an absolute DECIDING factor when it comes playoff time unless you are overwhelmingly better than the other squad. We weren't missing a role player. We were missing a 20ppg All-Star. In fact if it weren't for Peja's long history of shaky playoff performances, you would say we were CONSIDERABLY better than the Lakers based on our ability to play them to an absolute dead even heat with our #2 scorer out the whole series (the hobbled cameos late in the series were no more Peja than I am). Much to our own surprise I think.
Francisco d'Anconia said:
I think you've made some excellent points.
Regardless of what else may have happened prior to game 7, we had the opportunity to win it all. It wasn't game 7 at that point. It was a one-game contest for all the marbles...and the Kings lost. They lost because, as you pointed out and I've believed for years, when push came to shove they couldn't handle the pressue and missed FREE throws. They were getting the calls; they were getting to the line. They could have won the game but they didn't...
Woulda, coulda, shoulda is fine, I guess, for people who really want to believe the Kings were the best team. It doesn't matter if they were the best team. Bottom line, they didn't get the job done, regardless of anything else that might be said.
I agree totally with your comment that people should accept 2002 for what it was, a thrill ride that we won't soon forget.
mr. moustache
Bench
Would we have been the better team with Peja playing? Hedo was doing well and we've seen Peja in the playoffs. You never know, maybe it was a blessing in disguise.
Bricklayer said:
PixelPusher
Starter
memorable quote from that Jim Rome interview this morning (paraphrasing):
Vlade: "People always say I'm the best passing big man in the league and my most famous pass was to Robert Horry for that 3"
Vlade: "People always say I'm the best passing big man in the league and my most famous pass was to Robert Horry for that 3"
