Why will the Kings never play Defense? Petrie?

[CaminoChaos]

Before all of you jump all over me about Petrie, I am not saying fire him. I think Petrie is the best GM. Even better than West. But If you think about it other than the obvious trades(Webber-Thomas/skinner/Williamson) he has never signed or traded for a defensive starter except for Christie(but even Christie was a versitle offensive player). I've heard of people time and time again say "we need to pick up Dalembert" or "Tyson Chandler would help our front court defense".

My question to you is after going thru the "Petrie Era" and seeing all the player aquisitions that has taken place under his command, do you really think that Petrie would ever pick up a player who only plays defense and rebounds to be put in our starting lineup(Dalembert, Chandler, Evans)?

My opinion is that as long as Petrie is the GM, we will never see a defensive player like mentioned above in our starting line-up.

Note: I am not saying fire him. Petrie is God

 

[Washu1000]

The problem is that there are no decent defensive starters on the market right now, and it's rare when there is one. Dalembert is OK, but look how much the Sixers had to overpay him in the hopes that he would live up to the potential he showed. At that price, I'm glad we don't have Dalembert. We could have only gotten Chandler in a sign and trade, and I'm sure Petre was all over that possibility, but it just didn't work out. We don't really have anything the Bulls would like, not anything we are willing to give up for TC. Mo Evans is not a defensive starter.

Look at the top 10 defenders last year (or at least the top 2 at each position):
2005 NBA All Defense: Kevin Garnett, Bruce Bowen, Tim Duncan, Larry Hughes, Ben Wallace

2005 NBA All Defense Second: Tayshaun Prince, Chauncey Billups, Marcus Camby, Andrei Kirilenko, Jason Kidd, Dwyane Wade

Show me one of those players that the Kings had an honest chance of getting in the off season.

 

[SactoGreg]

I agree with the thought process behind Petrie not signing defensive-minded players. He is a terrific GM (certainly not God), but history would suggest that he doesn't seem to gravitate towards those players that are proven defensive stalwarts.

I'd also suggest that there aren't a ton of those types of players available every year, and that timing may have played a significant factor every off season.

Fire Petrie?

Preposterous!

But he has had several years to build a solid team, and a some very solid teams he has. Unless something dramatic happens before the regular season begins (with respect to a trade or signing), Petrie has again built a team with an emphasis on offense.

No defense, no Championship...

 

[nbrans]

The problem is that there are no decent defensive starters on the market right now, and it's rare when there is one. Dalembert is OK, but look how much the Sixers had to overpay him in the hopes that he would live up to the potential he showed. At that price, I'm glad we don't have Dalembert. We could have only gotten Chandler in a sign and trade, and I'm sure Petre was all over that possibility, but it just didn't work out. We don't really have anything the Bulls would like, not anything we are willing to give up for TC. Mo Evans is not a defensive starter.

Look at the top 10 defenders last year (or at least the top 2 at each position):
2005 NBA All Defense: Kevin Garnett, Bruce Bowen, Tim Duncan, Larry Hughes, Ben Wallace

2005 NBA All Defense Second: Tayshaun Prince, Chauncey Billups, Marcus Camby, Andrei Kirilenko, Jason Kidd, Dwyane Wade

Show me one of those players that the Kings had an honest chance of getting in the off season.

Yeah, that's a really good point. And when you think about the players that were actually available this offseason, Bonzi Wells and Jason Hart were among the top defenders at their positions (probably #2 behind James Posey and Earl Watson, respectively). I don't think Petrie brought in Jason Hart for his offensive ability, even though he's competent running the point.

Petrie has shown he's willing to bring in defensive specialists for the right price (Christie, Keon Clark, Pollard, etc.), but options like those weren't available this offseason. It seems to me like Petrie did pretty well with the players he could realistically obtain.

 

[thesanityannex]

Top defensive players are not available, like everyone else has said. If he COULD get his hands on one, I see him doing it in a snap.

 

[kingsofnba]

petrie has done a good job of reloading the roster... the kings are as deep as they were a few years ago now... you can not judge what type of defensive team this team will be until we see them on the floor together... the KEY is help, TEAM DEFENSE... there is not one great defensive stopper on the floor, but if the kings can learn to trust each other and play better help defense, i think the kings will be okay.... a look at the kings roster, i think we are better defensivly than last year....

Starting lineup

PF SAR- improvement over gimpy knee cwebb... has averaged 1 steal and 1 block per game, before the abyss called portland...

SF Peja- i think his Defense is very underrated, i expect him to step up this year, like in 2003-04, before CWebbs return... he is an effective defender

C Miller- if miller could ever return to his previous mode of banger, tough guy miller instead of pouty miller, he will be okay... we need east coast brad to return

SG Wells- a tough defender... big improvement over mobley... will be able to out muscle most other SG

PG Bibby- he will be the key to the defense... he has to learn to keep his player in front of him... if bibby can play decent defense, it would help alot

Bench:
Skinner, Hart are very good defenders... they both provide some toughness...

Corliss- tough guy in the low post... not afraid of laying down a hard foul...

KT- underrated defender... always active and pesky on defense... good rebounder...will fair much better playing against other teams backup 3/4...

Garcia/Martin- if they get a chance to play, i think they will be very active, hustle, help defenders, especially Garcia

The KEY to good defense is effort and hustle... adelman and the coaches need to emphasise help defense on this team... this team will never be San Antonio or Detroit, but it can be a seattle or memphis type of defensive team...

i will reserve judgement on the kings defense until we see them play... i think that the kings will be alright defensively, probably upper middle of the pack.... but their offense has and always will be their bread and butter....

 

[Bricklayer]

Before all of you jump all over me about Petrie, I am not saying fire him. I think Petrie is the best GM. Even better than West. But If you think about it other than the obvious trades(Webber-Thomas/skinner/Williamson) he has never signed or traded for a defensive starter except for Christie(but even Christie was a versitle offensive player). I've heard of people time and time again say "we need to pick up Dalembert" or "Tyson Chandler would help our front court defense".

My question to you is after going thru the "Petrie Era" and seeing all the player aquisitions that has taken place under his command, do you really think that Petrie would ever pick up a player who only plays defense and rebounds to be put in our starting lineup(Dalembert, Chandler, Evans)?

My opinion is that as long as Petrie is the GM, we will never see a defensive player like mentioned above in our starting line-up.

Note: I am not saying fire him. Petrie is God

You may be ight -- but of course that is why Petrie is NOT God. He's got an M.O. like any other mortal. And his approach has yet to result in a title...for ANYONE who's ever tried it. Doug Christie remains the one exception -- the one time he seemed to intentionally aim for a defensive stud and be willing to give something up to get him. But even there, you have to wonder if it was not just the best deal he could get for Corliss, and Corliss had to go to get out of the way of Geoff's favorite player (and he did have to go). At the time he was acquired, Doug used to be a decent scorer too and had actually OUTSCORED Corliss for the couople of years before the trade. So is it possible the defense was just a bonus? Maybe.

In any case, the other defensive players Geoff has picked up over the years have all come more or less for free -- no competition, nothing given up to get them. Pollard was a midseason waiver wire acquisition. Keon unexpectedly hit the market at the end of free agency that year. Jim Jackson was a midseason FA pickup after he sat out part of the year. Bobby came very cheap during free agency after being dropped to third sting in Minnesota. Those were all good pickups, but we have only the Christie trade as an example of Geoff even seeming to actively pursuing a major defender.

Which raises the question: Is Geoff like Nellie? Great eye for offensive talent. Will consistently assemble offensively talented teams and win you a lot of games. But will never win you the big one because of his inability to see/understand/focus on the traits which win the big ones? Its possible. The best evidence against that is how painfully close we came in '02 and '03. But of course the entire reason we came so painfully close during those years was because we did play defense there for a while. If Geoff gets that, we'll eventually be ok. We'll break this up and add some defenders into the mix. If Geoff doesn't get that, Sacto gets to become the Cubs. Always wearing a bridesmaid's dress.

 

[SkinnerBox]

If Geoff doesn't get that, Sacto gets to become the Cubs. Always wearing a bridesmaid's dress.

Bridesmaids have a lot more fun...

I have to disagree with your attitude that a title is the only thing that matters, and unless we are building a team that is a favorite to win one, then King's basketball is a dissapointment. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems to be the common theme in all of your posts.

I'm not saying I want to be the Clippers, but I feel pretty fortunate to have such a quality organization to root for. I think one of the reasons why we have such great fans is that we remember what it was like to be a perennial lottery team, and we appreciate what we have now. I'd hate to lose that through elevated or unrealistic expectations becuase we had a few fairytale seasons.

 

[SDKing]

Bridesmaids have a lot more fun...

I have to disagree with your attitude that a title is the only thing that matters, and unless we are building a team that is a favorite to win one, then King's basketball is a dissapointment. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems to be the common theme in all of your posts.

I'm not saying I want to be the Clippers, but I feel pretty fortunate to have such a quality organization to root for. I think one of the reasons why we have such great fans is that we remember what it was like to be a perennial lottery team, and we appreciate what we have now. I'd hate to lose that through elevated or unrealistic expectations becuase we had a few fairytale seasons.

Great Post

 

[acisking]

Bridesmaids have a lot more fun...

I have to disagree with your attitude that a title is the only thing that matters, and unless we are building a team that is a favorite to win one, then King's basketball is a dissapointment. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems to be the common theme in all of your posts.

I'm not saying I want to be the Clippers, but I feel pretty fortunate to have such a quality organization to root for. I think one of the reasons why we have such great fans is that we remember what it was like to be a perennial lottery team, and we appreciate what we have now. I'd hate to lose that through elevated or unrealistic expectations becuase we had a few fairytale seasons.

i see your point but i cant help but disagree....the point is that petrie has never shown any real willingness to give up quality offensive players for equally talented defensive ones...the expectations of "fairy tale seasons" are wat should have made petrie realize just like nellie that offensive teams cant win it all....sure the team will be fun to watch and be good in the regular season but unless the management has the title in its sights all the kings will ever have will be "fairy tale seasons"

 

[kingkung]

I'm not a basketball pro, but I don't believe that defense is due to "talent"... it's due to philosophy. Ron Artest isn't defensively "gifted"... he's great a defense because he's defensively minded, and prides himself on it. I'm convinced that anyone with athletic talent (speed, strength, quickness, size) and the desire to play great D can play great D. It's true that semi-unathletic players such as Peja Stojakovic may never be great defenders, but we have a pretty athletic roster now in Bonzi, 'Reef, Bibby, and even Brad Miller to a certain extent, so if we wanted to focus on D, we could.

Personally, I think we should focus nearly all of our efforts on defense, and become a team that prides itself on its team defense and rebounding, and let the offense flow from there. Defense produces offense. I don't think we have to worry anything about our offense whatsoever, so I would like Adelman to focus only on defense and rebounding during the preseason (well, not only, but primarily), and let the offense come from the defense, instead of the other way around. The 2002 team was different from our other teams because they actually did play good defense, defense that led to turnovers and fast breaks which led to easy buckets. I don't see any reason why this club can't play just as good as defense as that one.

 

[CaminoChaos]

I'm not a basketball pro, but I don't believe that defense is due to "talent"... it's due to philosophy. Ron Artest isn't defensively "gifted"... he's great a defense because he's defensively minded, and prides himself on it. I'm convinced that anyone with athletic talent (speed, strength, quickness, size) and the desire to play great D can play great D. It's true that semi-unathletic players such as Peja Stojakovic may never be great defenders, but we have a pretty athletic roster now in Bonzi, 'Reef, Bibby, and even Brad Miller to a certain extent, so if we wanted to focus on D, we could.

Personally, I think we should focus nearly all of our efforts on defense, and become a team that prides itself on its team defense and rebounding, and let the offense flow from there. Defense produces offense. I don't think we have to worry anything about our offense whatsoever, so I would like Adelman to focus only on defense and rebounding during the preseason (well, not only, but primarily), and let the offense come from the defense, instead of the other way around. The 2002 team was different from our other teams because they actually did play good defense, defense that led to turnovers and fast breaks which led to easy buckets. I don't see any reason why this club can't play just as good as defense as that one.

I agree with that. I think the offense is so player friendly that we are going to still average 100+ points. They need to primarily focus on keeping there opponent below 90-95 pts/game. I think defensive rebounding is something that needs special attention. I also believe that some our players need to be benched if they are not playing defense and more importantly rebounding. If a player can't do something as easy as boxing out they should be benched. We have have the depth to do that now.

 

[VF21]

Personally, I think we should focus nearly all of our efforts on defense, and become a team that prides itself on its team defense and rebounding, and let the offense flow from there.

And should we adopt the Detroit colors, too? And change the name of the team?

The Kings AREN'T a defensively-oriented team. And it looks strongly like the Maloofs don't WANT a team that focuses primarily on defense. Yes, we do need to pay more attention to defense, but you're talking about a total change in philosophy from the ground up. I just don't see it happening...and, quite frankly, I'm not at all sure I WANT to see it happen. I don't particularly like watching Detroit play. I keep falling asleep and missing chunks of the ... well, action (for lack of a better word).

The Sacramento Kings are capable of playing very exciting, winning basketball. They don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water to regain the competitive edge.

 

[VF21]

I also believe that some our players need to be benched if they are not playing defense and more importantly rebounding. If a player can't do something as easy as boxing out they should be benched. We have have the depth to do that now.

I still cannot understand the idea that benching a player for not doing something he's not generally known for doing is going to make him do it.

 

[ReinadelosReys]

Go out and get a defensive-minded player(s)--easier said than done. We've been done this road time and time again but the fact remains that there is only one Ben Wallace, one Ron Artest, one Bruce Bowen or one ::insert defensive player of the year candidate here::

Ok, so we got out and get a marginal defesive stud, someone who thinks defense but isn't all that great--second tier if you will. Do we build our team around that guy now? Is he good enought to be the center of a defensive scheme. Is he a great shot blocker who can handle all dribblers who get passed our guards and then are funneled into him? It was already established that he isn't Ben Wallace, so is he good enought to handle that? And even Ben Wallace can only do so much to help out a team's defense.

As already pointed out the "Kings" have played defense under Petrie's orchestration and it was done with several players that the Kings acquired-almost on a whim-playing good team defense. The Kings have a long way to go before they get back to even that type of defense. (Hmmm, or perhaps not, afterall can't comment on what I haven't seen and this team as currently contructed might shock us all. ::shrugs:: In any case, I'm not holding my breath)

 

[Jerryaki]

I still cannot understand the idea that benching a player for not doing something he's not generally known for doing is going to make him do it.

I can. I think a part of their argument is that defense is something stemming from effort, and if a player isn't going to show effort, I'd bench him.

 

[thesanityannex]

If the Kings turned into this "Defensive Minded" team everyone is talking about, many fans of the uptempo offense the Kings are known for, would bail out on the team. I sure wouldn't get league pass to watch the Pistons win games 73-65. Boring. Boring. Boring. Keep the offensive minds, play SOME defense, pretty simple.

 

[VF21]

I can. I think a part of their argument is that defense is something stemming from effort, and if a player isn't going to show effort, I'd bench him.

yes, defense stems from effort - and there are, of course, times when that effort is lacking. BUT - the Kings are not primarily a defensively-oriented team. That isn't going to change with the present regime.

These are adults, not children. You don't send them to their room because they aren't doing their chores. Benching a player at this level just isn't going to accomplish much, especially if it hasn't been your style all along.

Bottom line, I think it boils down to a coaching philosophy. Adelman is the "praise in public, chastize in private" type of coach. It's worked pretty well over the years, despite having hurdles in his path that would have totally derailed other teams.

 

[Jerryaki]

yes, defense stems from effort - and there are, of course, times when that effort is lacking. BUT - the Kings are not primarily a defensively-oriented team. That isn't going to change with the present regime.

These are adults, not children. You don't send them to their room because they aren't doing their chores. Benching a player at this level just isn't going to accomplish much, especially if it hasn't been your style all along.

Bottom line, I think it boils down to a coaching philosophy. Adelman is the "praise in public, chastize in private" type of coach. It's worked pretty well over the years, despite having hurdles in his path that would have totally derailed other teams.

i think those are valid points, but with a hard-enough-nosed coach, i think benching works. i remember an interview (during a game) with ginobli and parker, and one thing that they echoed was "if you don't play defense for pop, you don't play. period." (of course in their awesome foreign accents) i think it's effective, but probably more so if it is your style all along.

and as for the maturity of these guys, i don't believe all of them are adults. they're kids thrust into an entertainment business, having to deal with a ton of success early. maybe a timeout would work on them.

 

[VF21]

i think those are valid points, but with a hard-enough-nosed coach, i think benching works. i remember an interview (during a game) with ginobli and parker, and one thing that they echoed was "if you don't play defense for pop, you don't play. period." (of course in their awesome foreign accents) i think it's effective, but probably more so if it is your style all along.

and as for the maturity of these guys, i don't believe all of them are adults. they're kids thrust into an entertainment business, having to deal with a ton of success early. maybe a timeout would work on them.

That's the key right there. We have a coach that isn't a hard-nosed disciplinarian, for good, bad or otherwise. As long as we do have him, trying to turn him into Pop is going to be as fruitful as expecting your orange tree to sprout tomatoes.

 

[loopymitch]

We're never going to be a defense first team, that's just not us. Offense is the primary goal but we could definitely improve on the defense end. Will we? That remains to be seen.

 

[OptimusRhyme]

I don't think one Defensive player is going to help our team. Our system and the players we have are too offensive oriented, all of our core players are average defenders at best and play the most minutes on our team, Its our lack of athleticism that is hurting us defensively, I liked alot what Petrie has done the last two years though, we have gotten a lot more athletic and I think he has done the best he could to try and make us defensive/athletic, Martin, Garcia, Thomas, Skinner, Bonzi, Hart, Shareef are all Athletic guys, not the best defenders but what our system has to work with I think its going to improve our overall defense this year.

 

[BigWaxer]

I don't think it matters what GP does. He is getting players that create offensive that puts money into the stands. Exciting, fast paced games put people in the seats and this is a biz...

 

[AleksandarN]

But will never win you the big one because of his inability to see/understand/focus on the traits which win the big ones? Its possible. The best evidence against that is how painfully close we came in '02 and '03. But of course the entire reason we came so painfully close during those years was because we did play defense there for a while. If Geoff gets that, we'll eventually be ok. We'll break this up and add some defenders into the mix. If Geoff doesn't get that, Sacto gets to become the Cubs. Always wearing a bridesmaid's dress.

You can not really look at '02 and '03 and blame Petrie for not winning it because of not having enough defense. Those two years we lost was not the fault of Petrie we had the best shot of any team those two years. If it was not for injury the two years we would be lookin at 2 championship trophies.

 

[AriesMar27]

i never really saw the bad defense as our problem..... it was the rebounding. against seattle in the playoffs, james, evans and forson were getting second and third shots.... if miller or thomas could get a damn rebound or try to deflect it... the kings would have won that series.... their were too many 2nd chance opportunities.....

 

[SoupIsGood]

I don't think defense is all effort, some guys just don't have the instincts for it. Effort can usually turn a bad defender into an average one, though.

 

[Bricklayer]

You can not really look at '02 and '03 and blame Petrie for not winning it because of not having enough defense. Those two years we lost was not the fault of Petrie we had the best shot of any team those two years. If it was not for injury the two years we would be lookin at 2 championship trophies.

If you reread my post you will find that is much what I was saying -- what I was calling into question was HOW we came upon that defense. Organized plan from genius GM who gets it? Or more or less backed into it and had our best defensive pieces fall into our lap (and in most cases be good enough offensive pieces to attract the GM's attention on that front alone)? I have generally assumed and argued the former over the years -- targeted acquisitions. But as time goes by, and we watch more and more of Geoff Petrie in action there are very real reasons to believe I may have been wrong, that even our defenders may have been acquired for their offense, that a true defensive specialist who does not fall into Geoff's lap may be entirely overlooked.

Not 100% sure yet, closer to 50/50. but a competing hypothesis now exists to the "genius GM always makes perfect targeted acquisition" school of thought, and one that may actually have better evidence behind it. How this new generation is handled should provide the answer -- if another big defender(s) arrive in town to thrust us back into contention, and if they are acquired via trade or in some other manner than just happening to hit the open market when few other teams are in positon to grab them, then its back to targeted acquistions. On the other hand if none ever do and we become the Mavs II before being undermined by advancing age, then its entirely possible that our defensive years were a fluke.

The difficulty in assessing is compounded by our short window here -- because of the age of our main guys there just isn't time to do the patient piece by piece build thing with a five year time schedule. In 5 years our entire starting lineup will be on the way down, and afew of them might even be nearing retirement. So what took Geoff years to put together and get right the first time, somewhat unfairly has to be done in maybe a year tops this time out if we're to have any real window of contention at all. Of course that's the path we've chosen, so maybe not so unfair. But still difficult to get a accurate assessment of where we are on the grand plan this time around when things are, or are least should be, moving so much more quickly. Are we done? Or just getting started? Is this the final team? Or a transitionary phase?

(as an aside, still undetermined at this point is the potential role of a couple of Vegas flim flam men who happen to own the team -- they come from a world that's all about the show -- in their main business, its all style, no substance that pays the bills. What are their directions to Geoff, and are they more interested in being the halftime entertainment than the teams competing for the title? Wouldn't have thought that either three years ago. But much has been thrown into question now, and they seem to almost encourage and pander to a shallow entertainment first attitude amongst the fans. Additional evidence is needed).

 

[BigSong]

If you reread my post you will find that is much what I was saying -- what I was calling into question was HOW we came upon that defense. Organized plan from genius GM who gets it? Or more or less backed into it and had our best defensive pieces fall into our lap (and in most cases be good enough offensive pieces to attract the GM's attention on that front alone)? I have generally assumed and argued the former over the years -- targeted acquisitions. But as time goes by, and we watch more and more of Geoff Petrie in action there are very real reasons to believe I may have been wrong, that even our defenders may have been acquired for their offense, that a true defensive specialist who does not fall into Geoff's lap may be entirely overlooked.

Not 100% sure yet, closer to 50/50. but a competing hypothesis now exists to the "genius GM always makes perfect targeted acquisition" school of thought, and one that may actually have better evidence behind it. How this new generation is handled should provide the answer -- if another big defender(s) arrive in town to thrust us back into contention, and if they are acquired via trade or in some other manner than just happening to hit the open market when few other teams are in positon to grab them, then its back to targeted acquistions. On the other hand if none ever do and we become the Mavs II before being undermined by advancing age, then its entirely possible that our defensive years were a fluke.

The difficulty in assessing is compounded by our short window here -- because of the age of our main guys there just isn't time to do the patient piece by piece build thing with a five year time schedule. In 5 years our entire starting lineup will be on the way down, and afew of them might even be nearing retirement. So what took Geoff years to put together and get right the first time, somewhat unfairly has to be done in maybe a year tops this time out if we're to have any real window of contention at all. Of course that's the path we've chosen, so maybe not so unfair. But still difficult to get a accurate assessment of where we are on the grand plan this time around when things are, or are least should be, moving so much more quickly. Are we done? Or just getting started? Is this the final team? Or a transitionary phase?

(as an aside, still undetermined at this point is the potential role of a couple of Vegas flim flam men who happen to own the team -- they come from a world that's all about the show -- in their main business, its all style, no substance that pays the bills. What are their directions to Geoff, and are they more interested in being the halftime entertainment than the teams competing for the title? Wouldn't have thought that either three years ago. But much has been thrown into question now, and they seem to almost encourage and pander to a shallow entertainment first attitude amongst the fans. Additional evidence is needed).

do you cover your room in tin foil bricklayer...just kidding.

 

[Venom]

(as an aside, still undetermined at this point is the potential role of a couple of Vegas flim flam men who happen to own the team -- they come from a world that's all about the show -- in their main business, its all style, no substance that pays the bills. What are their directions to Geoff, and are they more interested in being the halftime entertainment than the teams competing for the title? Wouldn't have thought that either three years ago. But much has been thrown into question now, and they seem to almost encourage and pander to a shallow entertainment first attitude amongst the fans. Additional evidence is needed).

Which is only reinforced by people who say they wouldn't watch the Kings if they played like the Pistons. . .which I suppose means that they would not and do not currently watch any part of the playoffs beyond Round 1.

Honestly, I think it's Petrie and the Maloofs, much as the Mavs were a combo of Nellie's style and Cuban's infatuation. Of course, Cuban got smart, as he is really a student of the game. I've stated before that I have some experience with the Princeton system, and they do not care about defense, AT ALL. The belief is that defense can be taught, offense is an inherent skill set. Which is odd, because in my many years around the game I have found the opposite to be true. Defense boils down to whether or not you have the competitive desire to be good at it. How badly do you want to win? Do you take pride in stopping others? Does it hurt to get scored on? That competitive desire will bleed over into the offensive side. You can work on your dribble, work on your shot, work on your post moves. You can't "work" on your desire to win. There are many examples, but two of the best, I think, are Pippen and Artest. Coming into the league they were limited offensively, but they could lock people down. Within 3-4 years they were vital cogs in their respective offenses, and Pippen progressed to such a degree that he introduced a new definition to the basketball lexicon: point forward.

Another thing about defense, it does not require as much athleticism as people think. Bird was one of the best defenders of his generation. McHale was phenomenal. Rick Fox was a great defender. Mario Elie was fantastic. None of those guys are going to light the world on fire in an individual workout. Defense is about breaking down game film (PEJA), practicing hard, and playing harder.

And defense sells. How many Ben Wallace, Rodman, and Mourning jerseys have been sold throughout the years? In their respective primes those guys were among the league leaders in jerseys sold. Oakley was one of the most recognizable guys in the league. Freaking Anthony Mason used defense and gimmick haircuts to become the toast of New York. Anyway, the business model is out there that shows that defense will get you every bit as much attention as offense.

 

[kingkung]

And should we adopt the Detroit colors, too? And change the name of the team?

The Kings AREN'T a defensively-oriented team. And it looks strongly like the Maloofs don't WANT a team that focuses primarily on defense. Yes, we do need to pay more attention to defense, but you're talking about a total change in philosophy from the ground up. I just don't see it happening...and, quite frankly, I'm not at all sure I WANT to see it happen. I don't particularly like watching Detroit play. I keep falling asleep and missing chunks of the ... well, action (for lack of a better word).

The Sacramento Kings are capable of playing very exciting, winning basketball. They don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water to regain the competitive edge.

Thanks, but, no, I actually enjoy the purple and black just fine. And I think you misunderstand me entirely; what I'm saying is NOT that we should turn into a superbly boring team like Detroit. For one, Detroit doesn't have a starting five that can shoot, pass, and dribble with tremendous skill (have you seen Ben Wallace shoot?!?!), so they have to rely on their incredible defense to play winning, but boring basketball. We have all of the offense we need, and, chances are, we could play a game today, and I have a feeling that our offense would be just fine (after a quarter of warmup or so). Therefore, it is my opinion, and just my opinion, that we should concentrate all of our training camp and preseason our defense and rebounding, simply because defense will lead to more offensive possessions. I'm not saying we should completely eliminate our offensive philosophy, I'm just saying that offense for us is so easy, that it hardly needs any work at all, and that we should spend our time working on a defensive scheme to match what will certainly be a very potent offense. Because defense does beget offense, moreso, I would say, than offense begets defense, and our incredibly exciting team would be even more exciting (and better) with some steals and blocks for easy fast-break lay-ins.

Rest assured, we ain't NEVER gonna be Detroit. Seeing Mike Bibby stand on the court is more exciting than watching Detroit's offense. But I disagree completely with the notion that having a defensive philosophy and having a potent offense are mutually exclusive properties. Having a strong defensive philosophy will only help our offense and our excitement and, of course, our title hopes.