Why will the Kings never play Defense? Petrie?

kingkung · Aug 24, 2005

On a completely different note, I'm just a fan, as are you all, and, not to be too obvious (though this is obvious), but it's discomforting, but sometimes necessary to realize that all of the bickering and squabbles and arguments and counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments and agreements and disagreements aren't going to change **** about the Kings, no matter how many posts you make on KingsFans.com. In the end, whether you've posted on this board 1 time, or 15062 times, the end result is still the same; Adelman or Petrie act, and you react, and it never goes the other way, no matter whether you think the Kings should play more defense, or play more offense, or grab more rebounds, or stand on their heads, or whether Mike Bibby eats his food too fast, or Peja does his laundry too slow, or Chris Webber completely blew it with Tyra Banks (A: yes, he did). I know this board is just for interesting discussions and debates and not for making true change within the Kings organization, but for whatever reason, I just thought I'd like to point that out.

nbrans · Aug 24, 2005

Bricklayer said:

I think this is a pretty cynical interpretation of the Maloofs. If the Maloofs were so infatuated with style over substance and they were only interested in fan entertainment I don't think they would have willingly traded every single fan favorite away. The current lineup would be Jason Williams, Jon Barry, Hedo Turkoglu, Scot Pollard and Vlade Divac, with Bobby Jackson off the bench. Whether or not you agree with the philosophy of the front office I think it's pretty clear that the moves have been made in an effort to make the team better, and I'm extremely thankful that the Kings are one of the handful of teams willing to spend money to put a good basketball team on the floor.

VF21 · Aug 24, 2005

kingkung said:

Since it's pretty obvious you're referring to me, I'll respond: Sports message boards exist simply to argue, discuss, debate, etc. all the nuances of a particular sport or team. It's what keeps people coming back time after time. I'm pretty sure most of us are aware that our opinions won't necessarily affect the Kings. Does that mean we shouldn't make them?

Venom said:

I didn't say I wouldn't watch. What I did say was that I wouldn't find it anywhere near as exciting as the way the Sacramento Kings currently play. And no, as a matter of fact, I didn't watch a lot of the EC playoffs. That doesn't make me any less of a Kings fan.

If the Kings do decide to become a defensive juggernaut, I will still watch them because I am a Kings fan to the end. I don't think it will happen because it's not the style that seems predominant in the Western conference.

kingkung · Aug 24, 2005

Again, I don't think any of you need to be concerned with this... the Kings will NEVER, EVER, EVER be as boring as the Pistons with this lineup, no matter how much we work on defense. EVER. Even if we do spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on defense, it is not within our team's nature to be boring offensively. Our happy-go-lucky team THRIVES on having fun and enjoying themselves on the court, whether that's a championship formula or not.

Bricklayer · Aug 24, 2005

kingkung said:

You know, when your team wins it all it is NEVER boring. NEVER.

I want the rest of the league to entertain me, because I have no other reason to watch them. My team? Want them to win. Best entertainment there is.

SoupIsGood · Aug 24, 2005

What's so much more exciting about how some of the Western teams play? I love slow-paced games, if they are hard-fought. I thought last year's ECF was great...

kingkung · Aug 24, 2005

Bricklayer said:

Good point, but that doesn't refute my point that the Kings will never be the Detroit Pistons. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term 'boring' (I was merely restating VF's opinion that they were boring, to which I agree), and instead should have used 'completely defensive-minded to the point of nearly ignoring offense'. Maybe you would root strongly for Detroit if they were your team, but regardless, my point is that the Kings will never be a team like Detroit, no matter how much defensive effort we put in, because we are just much more naturally offensively talented.

Venom · Aug 24, 2005

VF21 said:

I didn't mean you, VF21. I know you're a basketball junkie, and if you choose not to watch after the Kings exit the playoffs, its cause it hurts too much, not because you don't appreciate the nuances of the game. I was refering to others who think that the ONLY way to develop a TV audience is to play like the Suns or Kings.

G_M · Aug 24, 2005

Venom said:

If I want to see clutching and grabbing I'll watch the NHL.

The reality is that most fans like the "nuances" of offense, so the game will evolve or devolve depending on your own take. The NBA marketing machine going back to Dr. J, Bird and Magic, Jordan, Lebron etc. promotes offense and offensive skill.

I'm hoping for a pardigm shift back to the ball of the 80's and early 90's!

Someone else can watch the Spurs and the Pistons.

chelle · Aug 24, 2005

While I agree that we MUST improve on defense, I happen to enjoy our style of play. I have no desire for us to become a team "totally" focused on defense. One of my closest friends is a die-hard Spurs fan and even she admitted that until Ginobli came along, they were kind of boring to watch. The finals were exciting, but up until then, she graded papers during the games.

I would LOVE for us to win it all. I know that we need to make a stronger commitment to defense. Nobody can argue with that. But, I will not even begin to enter the debate about whether defense is instinct or desire; nor will I argue over from where the defensive improvements need to come (coach, gm, new players, or returning players with stronger determination). It is enough to say that we need to improve defensively in all areas. However, I do not want it to be at the expense of our offesive strengths or overall style of play.

We had (hopefully STILL have) a special team with an above average system. No, we have not gone all the way, YET. I, for one, believe we can and will. Probably not this season, but not too far in the future. We still need "tweaking," but I am not ready just yet to scrap it all from bottom to top and start over at square one.

VF21 · Aug 24, 2005

SoupIsGood said:

If you don't find the West exciting, why is it you've become a fan of the Kings? Hmmmmmm?

(I know - you spend time here like I spend time at PD. Variety is good.)

At this point, I don't care what style of basketball they play. I just want them to start playing it again...

It's only August. (In my best whining voice...and ask Kingsgurl. I can whine really well.)

I WANT MY NBA BASKETBALL!!!!!

tyrant · Aug 25, 2005

a team is only as strong defensively as it's best player. however, it's the gm's job to bring in that player.

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

Actually a team is only as strong defensively as its WEAKEST player (at least among the starters) because THAT is the player the other team will quickly find ways to exploit.

tyrant · Aug 25, 2005

that doesn't make sense. a team is only as strong as it's BEST player, not it's weakest. take a look at a solid defensive team in the league today, i gaurantee every player in that starting 5 will not be a good defender. the weakest player may be close to average, but not a good defender. in the pistons starting 5 you have 2 great defensive players, but any other player could easily get toasted for 30; they just play terrific team defense. but look at jordan and the bulls. jordan was great defensively, so his team was great defensively. and so was shaq's 2001 lakers and duncans spurs. even the sixers when iverson took them to the finals. look at KG last year; the t-wolves were a 1st round team at best but they made it to the WCF. KG stepped up and others stepped up with him and they were considered a good defensive team holding the kings to 80 point in game 7. we all have to look at this kings team and ask ourselves who is our best player. that player will define this team defensively.

you've been reading into too many quotes VF21. "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". yadayadayada

this is basketball. real life. it's up to the floor general to set the tone.

nbrans · Aug 25, 2005

tyrant said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're both wrong and that you can't define how good a defense is by one player, whether it's the best or worst.

Bricklayer · Aug 25, 2005

VF21 said:

Don't know that that is entirely true just because a truly great defensive player covers up the mistakes of his teammates. Mike was a poor defender during our peak years, but we just had guys who could cover for that surrouonding him. Not sure the reverse is true either -- that a team is as good as its best defender. That seems unlikely. But a "best defender", as in a true impact guy, can make the whole team better than they are on their own. Dou'g value wasn't in stopping his own man, it was in helping and inspiring everybody else to stop theirs.

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

tyrant said:

Yes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And the same holds true for a defensive presence on a non-defensive team.

We aren't talking about a good defensive team like the Pistons. We're talking about a team where defense isn't often mentioned in the same breath as the team name, unless it's to lament a lack of said characteristic.

Yes, a very strong defensive presence cannot help but improve the Kings but it's not going to make them a defensive monster.

As far as "floor general" goes, that's the term usually applied to the point guard. If you're hoping for true defensive excellence at the 1 on the Sacramento Kings, you're really in for more disappointment.

BibityBobtyBoom · Aug 25, 2005

why didn't we go after a defensive back up pg this year? instead of one who works primarily on offense?

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

Bricklayer said:

I don't think we're going to be acquiring a "truly great defensive player." In regard to the Kings - a black hole on defense - I think my assessment is more right than wrong. Other teams can exploit our defensive weaknesses and have time after time after time.

tyrant seems to think the Kings are on their way to becoming a pillar of defensive excellence. In THAT case, then yes - I would agree that the best player would be the true strength. In the current scenario, however, I still believe that our Achilles heel will still be our cumulative lack of consistent, cohesive defense.

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

Okay, I'm done. If people are going to edit their comments while I'm replying to them, it just leads to general confusion...at least on my part.

tyrant · Aug 25, 2005

you're right about 1 thing. the point guard IS the floor general, i guess i should've said the leader of the team. anyways as i stated before it begins with the GM. ((petrie)) and that gm is responsible for bringing in the goods. just bringing in any defensive player will not be the solution because it will corrupt our offense; our best bet is to bring in someone that will run the princeton and make the right passes because unfortunately in the kings' case if we're rolling on offense, we're pretty much rolling on defense. staying active, keeping our hands up, getting deflections, quicker rotations. we don't have the heart to defend a team when we suck on the offensive end. that's why we lost in 5 games.

ask yourself this. if a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link that will mean that if i beat a brick wall with it it will break. but if a chain is as strong as its strongest link then that would mean i could beat it all day

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

tyrant said:

You really don't understand the saying, do you?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That means if you have a chain of 100 links and 99 of them are very strong but one of them is flawed and the metal is weak, then your chain will break at that point. Chains are generally used to pull things, so most likely your chain would break while it was being used for that purpose.

If you want to beat a brick wall with a chain, feel free to do so. It has nothing to do with the point of the quote.

nbrans · Aug 25, 2005

So which one of these pieces of chains are we going to trade for Kevin Garnett? Or is it the brick wall?

Sooooooo confused.

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

nbrans said:

I'd give them the chain, the brick wall ... and tyrant.

nbrans · Aug 25, 2005

VF21 said:

Throw in a 2nd round pick and I think KG is ours!!

kingkung · Aug 25, 2005

Strongest and Weakest Links

Again, way too simple of a statement on both accounts... you can't simply say that a team's defense is defined by its strongest link or its weakest link... it's just not that simple. It largely depends on the type of team that we're playing, and the caliber of the position players on that team. Let's break this down logically.

Say, for example, that our weakest link on defense is at our point guard position, and our strongest link at our shooting guard, and all other players play average defense.

Say an opposing team comes in boasting a superstar PF and not much else. Even though we know that the PF is bound to get 60% of the shots, it's extremely unlikely that our defensive SG is going to rotate and guard a PF that's six inches taller than him. It's also unlikely that our PG's lack of defense is going to be exposed, as the opponent's PG is a relative non-factor. In this example, our defensive performance will depend mostly on the average defense of our PF. In this case (and many others), our defense is not defined by either our strongest link or our weakest link.

SactoGreg · Aug 25, 2005

BibityBobtyBoom said:

Where have you been?

His name is Jason Hart...

BibityBobtyBoom · Aug 25, 2005

jason hart averages 9.5 ppg and 5apg, there for he is offensive minded, he doesn't play much defense. I want a player that averages 2 stl pg and 4 rb, something of that kind.

VF21 · Aug 25, 2005

BibityBobtyBoom said:

You might want to do some research before you arbitrarily decide Hart isn't defensively oriented. In reports when he was signed, there were numerous comments about his defensive abilities and athleticism. You should probably read them.

nbrans · Aug 25, 2005

BibityBobtyBoom said:

Um... Jason Hart was 12th in the league in steals per 48 per minutes.

Mods, what's the nice way of saying that someone is getting on your nerves?

Why will the Kings never play Defense? Petrie?

Bench

All-Star

Super Moderator Emeritus

Bench

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Bench

Bench

Bench

Starter

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

All-Star

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Super Moderator Emeritus

Bench

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

All-Star

Super Moderator Emeritus

All-Star

Bench

G-League

Bench

Super Moderator Emeritus

All-Star