Where does Landry fit

[jtt]

I'm still trying to figure out where Landry fits. He's listed at 6'9" but looks tiny out there. Can't seem to block and rebound like a power forward should. I think we should have him work on 3 point shooting and start him at the 3.
Here's a great lineup
PG: Tyreke, Beno
SG: Greene, Beno, Garcia
SF: Landry, Casspi, Greene
PF: Cousins, Thompson, Landry
C: Dalembert, Cousins

 

[SacKings7]

You're puttin the cart before the horse. Cousins is still just as unlikely to fall to 5 as always so we shouldn't assume that he's as good as on the team.

So to answer ur question, as of right now he still fits as our starting PF

 

[Widowmaker2k]

Landry's not a three. He's pretty much just an undersized four. He's very good offensively, but he's always going to have the problem with height. Because of that, he makes a great sixth man. Bring him in, get some quick low post scoring out of him, make sure you have Dalembert at C and Donte at SF when you do it, and it's a positive. Having those two in the game can go a long way for covering up Landry's shortness, but it's probably a big enough deal that he shouldn't be your starter.

 

[swisshh]

I like Landry coming off the bench first for either Sammy D or JT. If we draft a big, he'll take time to develop and will probably back up Dalembert.

Basically, you start JT and Dalembert to have some inside presence at first and then sub in offense. Keep going with the the top three bigs through the game.

Westphal has yet to stick to a lineup and will probably change things according to what the matchups are.

I just like Landry off the bench because it gives the team an advantage in bench points and doesn't start them off weak on the boards.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Cant run that line up out there with Evans. Hes going to need some shooters, or the defense will totally load up in the paint. Greene is OK from three, but still very inconsistent.

Landry still has a big spot on this team. I look for him to eventually move back to the bench. In a perfect world, we'd have Beno and Landry coming in off the bench. With those two you automatically have one of the best second units in the league, and we could have it next season depending on what we do in the draft.


Im actually one of the few here that think Cousins can play with Dalembert. Reports were Cousins was the best shooter we brought in for any workout this year. Im not saying I want him to stay out of the paint, but I see no reason why Cousins cant hit that mid range jumper like Landry and Thompson shoot. And if you have Dalembert running around the high post setting picks, Cousins will still have enough room to work in the paint.

I understand why some would think Cousins would struggle defending opposing 4's, but I think he can do that just as good as Landry can on D, if not better. Depends on the matchups really. Landry is quick but undersized, Cousins is slowish ( for a PF ) but oversized.

Compare it to the Lakers size up front. Bynum ( the big athletic shot blocker ) = Dalembert, then Gasol ( the post player/ mid range jump shooter ) = Cousins. Obviously Im not compairing talent here. Gasol is one of the best bigs in the league, but I think you can make the comparison when it comes down to how they fit together on the floor.

 

[DesertFox]

No. It's not as simple as telling Landry to become a 3pt shooter. He's one of the most efficient PF's for a reason.

He is not a bad shot blocker, and his biggest weakness (defensive rebounding) is Dalembert's biggest strength.

 

[Hella916]

Ummm Carl is going to be starting. Period....

 

[Ed2009]

He is definetly a 4..

 

[sauce-26]

We immediately became better down low when we got landry. And you want to start thompson? Please.

 

[Gary]

In my perfect world...

PG-Beno/Evans
SG-Evans/Garcia/2nd rounder?
SF-Casspi/Greene/Garcia
PF-Landry/Thompson/Brockman
C-Dalembert/Cousins/Brockman

 

[jtt]

Matchup is key

I think that Landry is a good starter if we play small, finesse teams like Warriors and Phoenix but if we play big, physical teams like Lakers we use Cousins, Favors, or Monroe (whoever we end up with). If you look at all the championship teams, they all rebound well. We need to build a front line that can rebound or we are not going anywhere. Gasol is an amazing rebounder. We need a guy like that.

 

[Bricklayer]

We can't start Landry at SF (and given our yougn SFs clamoring for time we should nto want to), but Houston did use him there quite a bit off the bench for mismatch potential. He was a 4/3, and could be again for us if he comes off the bench. Thing is that with Dalmebert's lack of offense, Landry's offensive game becomes actually more important in the starting lineup, so unless we acquire another talented offense PF, I see him continuing to start for the immediate future.

 

[SacTownKid]

I like Landry coming off the bench first for either Sammy D or JT. If we draft a big, he'll take time to develop and will probably back up Dalembert.

Basically, you start JT and Dalembert to have some inside presence at first and then sub in offense. Keep going with the the top three bigs through the game.

Westphal has yet to stick to a lineup and will probably change things according to what the matchups are.

I just like Landry off the bench because it gives the team an advantage in bench points and doesn't start them off weak on the boards.

Landry >>> Thompson. On both ends of the floor. JT can rebound better but with Sam Dalembert it shouldn't be a huge issue anymore. JT and Daly out there together is going to be very ugly for us. Tyreke better learn to shoot because he's going to have one helluva time scoring like he's used to if Thompson and Dalembert are out there.

 

[Prince_XY]

Landry's not a three. He's pretty much just an undersized four. He's very good offensively, but he's always going to have the problem with height. Because of that, he makes a great sixth man. Bring him in, get some quick low post scoring out of him, make sure you have Dalembert at C and Donte at SF when you do it, and it's a positive. Having those two in the game can go a long way for covering up Landry's shortness, but it's probably a big enough deal that he shouldn't be your starter.

Bullseye. You've got the best answer to the thread.

I think Landry's size will always be a liability especially if we are going to make him our full-time starter at the 4. If we want us to be one of the contenders and not just pretenders, then you don't want to make Landry the starting PF in this team, that is even if you have Dwight Howard as your starting center.

Of course, if we just want to win the D-league championship, then by all means let us make Landry our starting power forward now and in the future.

 

[Sparky6string]

I love him as our starter for now. I'll bet he's better than most starting PFs in the league. Seriously sometimes this board cracks me up.

 

[Kingstime]

Landry's lack of size shouldn't even be an issue here when it comes to what your gonna get out of him. He's young and still better and maybe one day can become an ELITE 4 in this NBA. He gives guys bigger than him fits on the offensive end and has the heart to not stop down there, plus he shoots a damn high percentage.

I still like him starting because I think JT plays great off the bench, less pressure for mental errors and such. With Dalembert and maybe our new big man via the draft Landrys lack of size on the glass shouldn't be much of a problem this year, hell he might even be able to grab more boards since teams will mostly focus on our big man down there for boxing out and such.

 

[Jkbiker]

I think that Landry is a good starter if we play small, finesse teams like Warriors and Phoenix but if we play big, physical teams like Lakers we use Cousins, Favors, or Monroe (whoever we end up with). If you look at all the championship teams, they all rebound well. We need to build a front line that can rebound or we are not going anywhere. Gasol is an amazing rebounder. We need a guy like that.

Bingo!! I love Landry and his game and all the effort he brings every night

But the games last year in which he struggled were against tall athletic PFs . Im sure both the coach and Landry knows exactly who these players are. In those situations I saw Landry have trouble on defense where his man would routinely shoot right over him. And by the same token he would have trouble shooting that beautiful half hook over the taller defender.

With that said I would still start him in 75% of the games unless one of these matchups were there and if the opposing backup PF was smaller, you bring him off the bench and you use other bigs to match up better.

If Cousins does fall to us, we have more weapons on the front line to make better matchups.

Just look what Lakers frontline did in playoffs with Bynum and Gasol
Gasol was rebounding high towering over players, Bynum the muscle, well
I think Cousins could out muscle Bynum and Delambert could frustrate gasol at least on D.

Having Landry defend Bynum or Gasol is just crazy

Bottom line, if Landry does not match up well with the other player, then bring him off the bench, otherwise you start him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Where does Landry fit?

 

[Showtime]

He played the 4 just fine in Houston, only he came off the bench and played alongside other tough frontline players to back him up. On the Kings, he's asked to come outside a lot more on their offense, and has nobody with him who can bang around down low. The guy is on an island, and you question his ability to play PF? He's fine at that position.

 

[jtt]

Landry better at 3

He played the 4 just fine in Houston, only he came off the bench and played alongside other tough frontline players to back him up. On the Kings, he's asked to come outside a lot more on their offense, and has nobody with him who can bang around down low. The guy is on an island, and you question his ability to play PF? He's fine at that position.

Landry is not fine at 4. You cannot be a PF and average 6.5 rebounds per game in 37 minutes per game. He looks like a kid out there going up against the other 4's. We can have him play 3 on defense and 4 on offense. You can have Casspi or Green play 4 on defense and 3 on offense.

 

[The Hammer]

He fits in anywhere because he's a great player that does things that any championship team needs and he's great off the bench and he has a great attitude. There will always be a place for a Carl Landry on any team, in any rotation.

 

[TTown Kings]

He's perfectly suited to be the first big off the bench like he did in Houston. He will likely be our starting 4 next year though. Definitely not a 3 and hope that he'll eventually settle in to a 6th man role on our team once we find our full sized starting 4.

 

[VF21]

Considering we've yet to see Dalembert even put a toesy in Arco as a Sacramento King, I think this thread is a bit premature. Having said that, I don't think we're going to be dissatisfied with Carl Landry and I think the addition of Sammy D. is going to help Carl's game, especially since Dalembert hasn't shown an allergy to playing in the paint.

When your starting center doesn't understand his role, or prefers to be more of a roving forward than true center, you (meaning Landry in this instance) can have problems figuring out your role and where you should be for optimum effectiveness. That problem is now resolved...

I think we're going to be very happy with Landry and the new look to the front court, whether Landry starts at the 4 with Dalembert or comes off the bench.

 

[Kings5692]

Landry's not a three. He's pretty much just an undersized four. He's very good offensively, but he's always going to have the problem with height. Because of that, he makes a great sixth man. Bring him in, get some quick low post scoring out of him, make sure you have Dalembert at C and Donte at SF when you do it, and it's a positive. Having those two in the game can go a long way for covering up Landry's shortness, but it's probably a big enough deal that he shouldn't be your starter.

great stuff

 

[Kings5692]

He's perfectly suited to be the first big off the bench like he did in Houston. He will likely be our starting 4 next year though. Definitely not a 3 and hope that he'll eventually settle in to a 6th man role on our team once we find our full sized starting 4.

Jason Thompson?

 

[rhythmless]

Ideally, to be a championship contender, a guy like Landry would be your 6th man off the bench. He hustles, doesn't quit, high energy. He is somewhat of a black hole, and lacks height, which is somewhat mitigated when you throw him in against a second unit.

Ideally, you hope to get Cousins and have him develop into a post threat/defensive big, with Thompson as having the ability to hit the elbow jumper. Both are long, very long, for a 4/5. Thompson is finesse, while Cousins more physical. Great combo. Not your most athletic combo, but not shabby either.

Bring in Dalembert/Landry in the 2nd unit. Dalembert requires zero touches, Landry gets to do what he does best; score in bunches against (usually) less skilled bigs than the starting unit, while not getting killed on defense due to his lack of height, which is mitigated by Dalembert's penchant for rebounds.

A Cousins/Dalembert/Thompson/Landry frontcourt with a guy like Brockman rounding out the rotation gives you a lot of flexibility. Smallball, use Thompson and Landry, which matches up alright with the GS bigs and such. Want to hunker down against a Dwight/Gortat combo? You have Cousins/Dalembert.

Defense, length by Dalembert/Cousins, offense by Cousins and Landry, hustle by JT/Brockman, rebounds by Dalembert/Cousins/Thompson, post offense w/Cousins/Landry, elbow jumpers and high post offense by Landry and Thompson. You can see how this sets us up for just about everything any team can throw at us.

That's how it could fit.

 

[SacKings7]

I agree that in the long term Landry is not the answer as our starting PF, but he's our best option at PF right now. I love Landry's game, I just wish he was taller.

As for sticking him at the 3, I'll pass. We're gonna need at least decent 3 point shooters at SG and SF with Tyreke as our PG, at least until he improves that shot. And Greene and Casspi cannot play PF. I don't care how tall they are, they're SF's.

 

[Showtime]

Landry is not fine at 4.

His career at that position says otherwise.

You cannot be a PF and average 6.5 rebounds per game in 37 minutes per game.

Again, he's proven to be just fine in Houston. Why you do disregard this? His per-36 minute rebounding averages in Houston:

10.5
8.4
7.3

He had good rebounding % too. So, he didn't have any problem prior to coming to Sacramento, because he was coming off the bench and grabbing around 5 boards in around 20 minutes a game.

The problem is that the Kings are trying to make him the #2 option and were asking him to do a lot more things. He went from a 6th man who was a hustle guy who was asked to focus in on certain areas, to being placed in a starting role in a new system and asked to do a lot more defensively. Give the guy a break.

Why don't you give him some more time? Why do you feel that 28 games account more than the rest of his career?

He looks like a kid out there going up against the other 4's. We can have him play 3 on defense and 4 on offense. You can have Casspi or Green play 4 on defense and 3 on offense.

That's absurd. He doesn't have the lateral quickness and footspeed to compete with modern 3's, especially on teams with a smaller lineup.

 

[pshn80]

I love him as our starter for now. I'll bet he's better than most starting PFs in the league. Seriously sometimes this board cracks me up.

I, too, get cracked up by all the unnecessary posturing and pontificating here. Now it's my turn. Let's dance with the one that brought us and then change as necessary. Main point is, we are not done yet. We will have to take someone next Thursday so i'll try to limit myself until then.

 

[Sparky6string]

I, too, get cracked up by all the unnecessary posturing and pontificating here. Now it's my turn. Let's dance with the one that brought us and then change as necessary. Main point is, we are not done yet. We will have to take someone next Thursday so i'll try to limit myself until then.

Oh I agree, and I'm on board for the whole ride. I still got the faith.