Your thoughts on the Kings rebuild...

[bajaden]

I'll try to break my response down coherently, since I am too lazy to make small quotes:

About the Kings offense, for the large part of Westphal's tenure with the Kings, the offense consisted of one guy dribbling and four other guys standing around trying to figure out what he wants to do. Now if you're referring to the stretch of 10 games or so that the Kings sort of looked like a team, it remains to be seen whether or not Westphal can keep it up with his new roster. Indeed, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Besides being able to handle, pass, shoot etc. a motion offense requires players with a very high basketball IQ. I'm not convinced that the current group of players are up to the task.

The Lakers played the triangle, therefore could afford to have Fisher at the point.

Rose and Deron are great players, but they have yet to win a championship. Having a PG that can score is a wonderful thing, but for a team that does not run the Triangle or a similar offense, the primary role of the PG, imo, should be to fascilitate the offense, and scoring should be secondary. I think Deron can fit into that role, not sure about Rose, though. I was rooting for Chicago against Miami, but with every game it was apparent that the Bulls were too dependent on one player to be able to win such a tough playoff series, much like LeBron's Cav's. If one player is responsible for initiating the offense AND scoring, the offense becomes stagnant and ineffective. If the player is talented enough, like Rose and LeBron, it can work in the regular season and early playoff rounds, but when it's time to face the toughest obstacles it's just not enough. I'll be rooting for Chicago or the Celtics to come out of the East next season, but I'm not very optimistic that either of them can stop the forces of evil from South Beach...

I didn't say the Kings were doing a great job of running a motion offense, but thats the offense that they're trying to install. I won't argue basketball IQ with you, since most people don't know what it is. I think its to easy a term to just throw out there as a general criticism to which there is no answer. I think its misdirected most of the time, and also used by people that have a lot less of it than the those they criticize. So I'll leave it at that.

If you can accept that the Kings are trying to run a motion offense, then you can possibily accept the idea that a typical PG isn't necessary. The Lakers didn't have one, and the Bulls didn't have one. Now I'm not against having a typical PG, and I'm not saying that having one precludes you from running any type of motion offense. The only thing a motion offense requires is that the PG be able to shoot the ball efficiently. And that doesn't mean he has to be the focus of the offense. Just because a PG has the capability to score, doesn't mean he has to be one of the top 3 options. People tend to think of Nash as the poster boy of what a PG is suspossed to look like. But they also tend to forget that coming out of college he was thought of as more of a scoring PG.

What were really disagreeing on here, is whether Fredette is the answer as the third guard in our rotation. I think he is, and you have your doubts. The only thing that will resolve our disagreement is his performance. So we'll just have to wait and see.

I also don't think using a championship ring as a standard for success is fair. To say that Rose or Williams hasn't won a championship, and therefore imply that they're less than successful would be a bit of a stretch. I'd certainly take either one of them on my team right now. If the Bulls stalled because they were relying on Rose too much, then it was because they had no one else to rely on. There were times when no one else could score the ball, so Rose tried to carry the team all by himself. Westbrook did the same thing at times for the Thunder. Part of the reason was the situation they were in, and part of it was inexperience. The Bulls and Rose will be better next year.

 

[rainmaker]

I didn't say the Kings were doing a great job of running a motion offense, but thats the offense that they're trying to install. I won't argue basketball IQ with you, since most people don't know what it is. I think its to easy a term to just throw out there as a general criticism to which there is no answer. I think its misdirected most of the time, and also used by people that have a lot less of it than the those they criticize. So I'll leave it at that.

If you can accept that the Kings are trying to run a motion offense, then you can possibily accept the idea that a typical PG isn't necessary. The Lakers didn't have one, and the Bulls didn't have one. Now I'm not against having a typical PG, and I'm not saying that having one precludes you from running any type of motion offense. The only thing a motion offense requires is that the PG be able to shoot the ball efficiently. And that doesn't mean he has to be the focus of the offense. Just because a PG has the capability to score, doesn't mean he has to be one of the top 3 options. People tend to think of Nash as the poster boy of what a PG is suspossed to look like. But they also tend to forget that coming out of college he was thought of as more of a scoring PG.

What were really disagreeing on here, is whether Fredette is the answer as the third guard in our rotation. I think he is, and you have your doubts. The only thing that will resolve our disagreement is his performance. So we'll just have to wait and see.

I also don't think using a championship ring as a standard for success is fair. To say that Rose or Williams hasn't won a championship, and therefore imply that they're less than successful would be a bit of a stretch. I'd certainly take either one of them on my team right now. If the Bulls stalled because they were relying on Rose too much, then it was because they had no one else to rely on. There were times when no one else could score the ball, so Rose tried to carry the team all by himself. Westbrook did the same thing at times for the Thunder. Part of the reason was the situation they were in, and part of it was inexperience. The Bulls and Rose will be better next year.

Baja, you're missing Asaf's point. It's all or nothing. Ring or bust. Rebuilds aren't an excuse. If you're a pg who hasn't won a ring, you're not worthy of starting on the Kings. Future potential means nothing! Forget about talented guys like Rose and Durant, who haven't won a ring, we need high IQ players like Metta World Peace if we want to win.

 

[bajaden]

I agree with the concern. I think for Reke to take the next step it is as much mental as getting a reliable outside shot. He's young, so there is hope he grows a brain. And in the couple games where he "decided to be a facilitator" he really did manage to rack up assists. I also dont think its so much about Reke being a selfish ballhog, as Reke wanting to help his team win. He generally only goes into "me first" mode in the 4th, when the game is on the line...Something you actually want your star to do...He just isnt there yet skillwise.

Maybe if we had a legit coach the youngsters will come along... Westphal seems to encourage bad habits, rather than attempt to nip them in the bud.


Besides coaching...This rebuild is awesome. I still think Reke/Cuz could be a NASTY duo in a couple years. Especially since both their games lend themselves well to playoff style, D-heavy, grind-it-out, basketball. And with all the other young guys, we've established a great core around that star duo.

I think Tyreke just does what he's done all his life. When the going gets tough, a person tends to stay with whats familar and comfortable. It has nothing to do with growing a brain. Tyreke knows how to play the game. But old habits die hard. Ask any self-taught golfer how hard it is to take a series of lessons and apply the changes necessary to improve. It doesn't happen overnight. Thats not an excuse, its just the way it is. It takes time to erase old muscle memory and replace it with new. We're not just asking Tyreke to improve his game, we're asking him to change his game. Much harder! That requires an entirely different mental approach to the game. A little patience on our part is required.

 

[bajaden]

So what does that say for the "minority"?

Heh heh! Thanks for the laugh.....

 

[bajaden]

Others may have used the word catastrophe, mine was underwhelmed. It's a decent start but so far I'm more disappointed with the moves we didn't make than the moves we did make. We did add more shooting, I won't dispute that. Jimmer can shoot the heck out of the ball. But we also traded away our best 3 point shooter from last season and Jimmer plays the same position as our best remaining 3 point shooter. It's an improvement but not a drastic one. I didn't think shooting was as big of a need as a lot of people did though. At the end of the day we were middle of the pack on points scored. Our offensive efficiency was bad but our defense was much worse.

We did add another defender in Salmons but he's not young enough to be a part of the core, he's not an elite defender especially not at SF, and his offense, or rather his style of offense, is quite likely going to be a problem which puts his overall value in question for me. He's been a solid addition on paper to all four teams that he's played on and yet all of those teams under-performed relative to expectations. I think he's a small upgrade next year followed by declining performance and complaints about his role the following two years. That's been the pattern his whole career and he's not getting any younger. Committing to a young defensive role player would have made a bigger difference to me. Salmons is a "get better now" addition which was made in lieu of a more long-term commitment and it could just as easily backfire.

And lastly we haven't actually re-signed Dalembert yet (or signed Chandler away from the champs for that matter) and if we don't bring him back, than we haven't added size but lost size. Hickson is not a longterm solution at PF, at least not a good one. His numbers last season are not that impressive considering his usage % on what amounted to a D-League All Star team. He's Carl Landry with better rebounding, which makes him a terrible fit next to Cousins. Off the bench he's a solid role-player but we already have one of those in Thompson. Whiteside hopefully will get to contribute at some point too. I just don't see adding another high-usage scoring forward as a pressing need for us. And if it means moving Cousins to C than we're giving up size. Moving Salmons to SF is giving up more size and moving Tyreke to SG, more of the same.

The original question was how we like the re-build so far. I think the trio of Evans, Cousins, and Thornton is an excellent start and Whiteside's potential developing for cheap is a nice luxary for any rebuilding team to have. It's not all doom and gloom for me if I sometimes sound like that lately. We had a solid core already. But this was our big off-season to take a step forward and so far I'm not seeing much progress. If the four guys we already have continue to develop it may not matter anyway. I'm still mostly optimistic about the future of this team, but the moves happening this off-season have left me puzzled and, like I said, underwhelmed.

It's simple really, we currently have two solid starters and a fringe third in Thornton so we're still shopping for frontline talent and we (had) draftpicks and (have) money to spend. So far we've added Jimmer+Salmons+Hickson. I don't think any of them will be a starter on this or any other team in 5 years. Hence, underwhelmed. But I understand that not everyone agrees.

Is this the same hrdboiled that I used to know? Where has all you logic gone? How can you be less than impressed with what the Kings have done this offseason when we haven't had an offseason yet? How can you be upset that we haven't resigned Dalembert or signed Chandler, when the freeagent signing period hasn't started yet. I mean, just what the hell are you talking about?

How can you say that Hickson isn't our answer at PF for the future, when he's only 22 years old. You got some crystal ball somewhere? I'd like to borrow it if you do! Whose the other great 3 pt shooter that plays the same position as Fredette? Are you referring to Thornton? Thornton is a SG, and Fredette is a PG. Let me say it again so your perfectly clear on the subject. Fredette is a POINT GUARD!!!!!!!!! Got it? He's played point guard since he first started to play basketball. Just because someone can shoot the hell out of the ball, doesn't mean he's incapable of dribbling the ball and passing the ball.

I'm sorry you don't see much progress so far. I do! I'll admit to not having visions of John Salmons dancing before my eyes when I thought of improving the SF position. If your upset about that move, I can understand. But I do think he's an improvement. At least in the short term. I thought the move to get Hickson was a good one. We only had two servicable frontcourt players on the team with Cousins and Thompson, and with the addition of Salmons and Honeycutt we had five SF's. So we thinned the SF position and added a young talented player to the frontcourt with little cost to the cap. So I look at that as positive progress. Maybe not earth shattering progress, but as I pointed out, the freeagent signing period hasn't started yet.

 

[Asaf]

I didn't say the Kings were doing a great job of running a motion offense, but thats the offense that they're trying to install.

If you can accept that the Kings are trying to run a motion offense, then you can possibily accept the idea that a typical PG isn't necessary.

Whatever it was they were trying to run, it was executed so poorly that it can't be used as justification to exclude a more-or-less traditional PG from the Kings' future plans.

The Lakers didn't have one, and the Bulls didn't have one.

Both those teams were coached by Phil Jackson (and ofcourse had MJ/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq). No other coach in the NBA has been able to run a similar offense with results even coming close to those that Phil produced.

Now I'm not against having a typical PG, and I'm not saying that having one precludes you from running any type of motion offense. The only thing a motion offense requires is that the PG be able to shoot the ball efficiently. And that doesn't mean he has to be the focus of the offense. Just because a PG has the capability to score, doesn't mean he has to be one of the top 3 options. People tend to think of Nash as the poster boy of what a PG is suspossed to look like. But they also tend to forget that coming out of college he was thought of as more of a scoring PG.

I completely agree here. That's actually part of my point. In the Triangle/Motion offense everyone is a fascilitator, so the PG doesn't need to be the focus of the offense and is not especially important anyway. In a more traditional style, the PG needs to focus more on fascilitating and less on scoring, otherwise the offense becomes stagnant and predictable.

What were really disagreeing on here, is whether Fredette is the answer as the third guard in our rotation. I think he is, and you have your doubts. The only thing that will resolve our disagreement is his performance. So we'll just have to wait and see.

Not really. I have no problem with Jimmer being the third guard. What I do have a problem with is the idea that the Kings can rely on Tyreke and Jimmer as the long term answers at the PG position. Tyreke is an important part of the franchise going forward, but he is not a PG. I don't follow college ball so all I know about Jimmer is from external reports, but I haven't read anything that would make me believe that he can be the Kings' primary PG of the future.

I also don't think using a championship ring as a standard for success is fair. To say that Rose or Williams hasn't won a championship, and therefore imply that they're less than successful would be a bit of a stretch. I'd certainly take either one of them on my team right now. If the Bulls stalled because they were relying on Rose too much, then it was because they had no one else to rely on. There were times when no one else could score the ball, so Rose tried to carry the team all by himself. Westbrook did the same thing at times for the Thunder. Part of the reason was the situation they were in, and part of it was inexperience. The Bulls and Rose will be better next year.

I wasn't criticising Rose or Deron. They are both extremely talented players who are capable of winning rings in the future. However, at least in Rose's case the way he was being used hurt the bulls. I don't agree that the Bulls didn't have other scoring options. Deng and Korver were doing well offensively, and even Boozer and Bogans were doing fine, but Rose (or rather Thibs) felt like he had to carry the scoring load despite his horrible FG% throughout the series and the fact that Miami focused all of their defensive effort on him, and forced the issue too much. That was the major reason, imo, for the Bulls' elimination in that series.

As for Deron, I think he actually does a good job balancing the scoring and fascilitating. If Tyreke did that on the Kings, I would be much happier with him.

 

[bajaden]

Barea.

I like Barea quite a bit. But I believe that Tyreke is our starting PG. Hopefully a healthy one. Barea would be a nice guy to have off the bench. The problem is they could have just kept Beno if they wanted another PG off the bench. I think any PG signings will be, in case of emergency type PG's. I think the Kings want to go with a 3 guard rotation of Evans, Thornton, and Fredette, and maybe have a Watson sitting on the bench in case someone gets hurt. I'm not sure Barea would be happy with that scenario, and I wouldn't blame him.

 

[Livinthedream]

I think Tyreke just does what he's done all his life. When the going gets tough, a person tends to stay with whats familar and comfortable. It has nothing to do with growing a brain. Tyreke knows how to play the game. But old habits die hard. Ask any self-taught golfer how hard it is to take a series of lessons and apply the changes necessary to improve. It doesn't happen overnight. Thats not an excuse, its just the way it is. It takes time to erase old muscle memory and replace it with new. We're not just asking Tyreke to improve his game, we're asking him to change his game. Much harder! That requires an entirely different mental approach to the game. A little patience on our part is required.

I agree. He has a lot on his plate and it can affect his ability to adjust his game as quickly as well. He has to learn the PG position beginning at the NBA level as a starter. Has to be the creator on offense as well as the finisher. And he has to be the de facto leader when he's the youngest on the team and doesn't even completely know his own position yet. It's why veteran leadership would be very important on our team, even if it's just a locker room presence. Preferably at PG or PF and someone who is not in competition with him. Thornton will help alleviate some of these burdens. Jimmer will be more mature and steady than some of the past draft picks, but he still won't carry as much weight as say a Derrick Fisher would. No, I don't want Derrick Fisher.....just using him to as an example.

 

[Livinthedream]

I like Barea quite a bit. But I believe that Tyreke is our starting PG. Hopefully a healthy one. Barea would be a nice guy to have off the bench. The problem is they could have just kept Beno if they wanted another PG off the bench. I think any PG signings will be, in case of emergency type PG's. I think the Kings want to go with a 3 guard rotation of Evans, Thornton, and Fredette, and maybe have a Watson sitting on the bench in case someone gets hurt. I'm not sure Barea would be happy with that scenario, and I wouldn't blame him.

I think we picked up Isaiah Thomas to be our Barea type guy. A change of pace player that creates matchup problems because of quickness. Cheaper to do it with him than to pay a Barea to sit on the bench.

 

[Telemachus]

So what does that say for the "minority"?

I think that would refer to the trollers or those who just like to argue no matter what.

 

[Glenn]

I think that would refer to the trollers or those who just like to argue no matter what.

Of course.

 

[rainmaker]

Barea.

Barea won't start for us. Love him, but as a 6th man. We already have a 6th man in Thornton, and Barea isn't leapfrogging anyone in a Reke/Thornton/Jimmer backcourt, and he isn't signing anywhere as a 4th guard. I asked who could be a starting pg for us through free agency? I guess I should clarify, that I meant an upgrade, although I thought that was obvious. Aaron Brooks could also hypothetically start for us, but it won't happen.

 

[rainmaker]

Secondly, I'm not a person who ever tries to figure out who we get, who is a FA, who is in the league for us. That's not my thing. If the Kings are going to do what they said they well definitely do, which is to finally invest some of the cap money in a significant way, just how to do you think they are going to do that, regardless of who is on the FA list. Logic says it has to be at the PG or SF positions unless they move one of our top eight. I would appreciate you telling me who they can get to do the job. There are many ways to skin a cat. I'm not taking on the job of figuring it out. I pay Petrie for that.

Well I think you can do a little of the work yourself, and not expect others to do it for you, especially when I asked an MOD to sticky the 2011 FA list in this section. You're asking others what we'll do this our cap space, while proudly stating putting some thought into it isn't something you will do? It takes less time to read through these threads than to look at a FA list.

 

[hrdboild]

Is this the same hrdboiled that I used to know? Where has all you logic gone? How can you be less than impressed with what the Kings have done this offseason when we haven't had an offseason yet? How can you be upset that we haven't resigned Dalembert or signed Chandler, when the freeagent signing period hasn't started yet. I mean, just what the hell are you talking about?

How can you say that Hickson isn't our answer at PF for the future, when he's only 22 years old. You got some crystal ball somewhere? I'd like to borrow it if you do! Whose the other great 3 pt shooter that plays the same position as Fredette? Are you referring to Thornton? Thornton is a SG, and Fredette is a PG. Let me say it again so your perfectly clear on the subject. Fredette is a POINT GUARD!!!!!!!!! Got it? He's played point guard since he first started to play basketball. Just because someone can shoot the hell out of the ball, doesn't mean he's incapable of dribbling the ball and passing the ball.

I'm sorry you don't see much progress so far. I do! I'll admit to not having visions of John Salmons dancing before my eyes when I thought of improving the SF position. If your upset about that move, I can understand. But I do think he's an improvement. At least in the short term. I thought the move to get Hickson was a good one. We only had two servicable frontcourt players on the team with Cousins and Thompson, and with the addition of Salmons and Honeycutt we had five SF's. So we thinned the SF position and added a young talented player to the frontcourt with little cost to the cap. So I look at that as positive progress. Maybe not earth shattering progress, but as I pointed out, the freeagent signing period hasn't started yet.

Heh, well I think other people are making a bigger deal out of this than I am. I have a contrary opinion... I'm not trying to shove it down anyone's throat, at least I don't think I am. But I do want to get my opinion out there, as this is the place for that is it not?

My point about Chandler/Dalembert isn't that we're not going to re-sign them. I understand there hasn't even been an opportunity to do that yet, and might not be for awhile. But Brick commented that we've added size so far this off-season and I don't think that's the case unless you assume Dalembert is coming back, which we don't know yet. I believe the Kings want him to come back, but it really depends on what monetary figure is attached to that desire. And if they see Hickson as frontcourt insurance in case we can't get Chandler or Dalembert or they're deemed too expensive, well then we clearly lost size in that case. It's yet to be determined.

These are my issues with the off-season in summary:

1) I have big concerns about Salmons' ability to fit in offensively and I don't like him defensively as a SF. He's giving up size to half the starting SFs in the league. Quickness only goes so far against stronger players and he might not even have that for much longer.

2) I have questions about Jimmer's ability to play defense which I think limits his potential as a starter. He was a very poor defender in college. There's reason to believe that could change of course, but more often than not when players come into the league as seniors they pretty much already are the player that they're going to be. That is to say, I think he'll get better but I don't think he's going to fundamentally change who he is.

3) I have visions of DeMarcus Cousins dominating on the inside for us for years to come and putting another offensive-oriented forward next to him is either going to take away touches that should be going to other players (the Carl Landry effect) or give up points to the other team's front-court like a sieve, perhaps both. I'll admit I haven't watched much of Hickson in the past couple years so I don't know that he's as bad of a fit as I make him out to be. But from what I have seen, I think he's overrated as a player and as a prospect. Even kingofthejungle in his defense of Hickson notes that he doesn't play much defense and physical capability is not the problem. He was one of the defacto leaders on that young team and their leading scorer for much of the season. That he seemingly excuses himself from defensive responsibility is a problem for me (as it is would be with any player).

And regarding that other point, I think Jimmer and Thornton are both combo guards though both of them can also handle and pass. Either one could play PG and so could Tyreke. Defensively we probably don't want to play a lineup for very long that features both Thornton and Jimmer in the backcourt so I see some redundancy there. But it's a dumb point anyway, so I'm not going to pursue it any further. We have improved our shooting already through trades and the draft. No argument from me there.

In the end, though we have some differences of opinion on very young players who still have a lot to prove one way or another, I don't think we're that far apart on our conclusions. I said I haven't seen much progress and you said you do see progress, just not earth-shattering progress. It's a subtle difference in degree if anything. Maybe I was just expecting too much. I might be happier about modest progress if I weren't a little bitter about the Salmons trade. We gave up 3 draft spots to take back a bigger contract. Then five picks later Indiana traded their pick for a backup PG. We couldn't have offered them Beno? We couldn't have used the 15th pick? Then we had to give up a future pick in the Hickson deal when reportedly San Antonio and New York were also very interested in Casspi. We couldn't have got a better deal? In a vacuum our roster has improved, but in context I'm still left feeling mildly disappointed about the particulars of that improvement. That's all. It's not a vendetta or anything.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

The Idea of signing Barea after we traded Beno for Salmons, when we could have just kept Beno and signed AK or Prince ... kind of makes me sick.

 

[pshn80]

Well I think you can do a little of the work yourself, and not expect others to do it for you, especially when I asked an MOD to sticky the 2011 FA list in this section. You're asking others what we'll do this our cap space, while proudly stating putting some thought into it isn't something you will do? It takes less time to read through these threads than to look at a FA list.

And read through the threads I do. I don't look at the free agent list. I'm sorry that hits you that way.

Let me rephase my question that you site. When say 'tell me who they are going to spend their cap money on' I mean "what position or positions will they sink this cap money towards?". I'm not looking for names of players but position they play. And you will note if you have read this thread that I have said and resaid what positions I think they intend to spend on. What I have heard so far is that it will be for veteran backup players at the PG and SF positions, players that apparently won't cost much money. The other answer I read into folks' comments is that we probably won't spend much of anything more.

 

[Glenn]

The Idea of signing Barea after we traded Beno for Salmons, when we could have just kept Beno and signed AK or Prince ... kind of makes me sick.

A little me, too. I have to assume that GP's experience with Salmons was a lot better than we think. Also, I think the moves we made have left us with a team that can play no matter what happens in free agency. Without the moves, we would be short a decent SF and a big. That would mean a great free agent signing was absolutely essential to have a decent year next year. Now I think next year will be an improvement no matter what happens in free agency.

 

[Kingster]

Barea won't start for us. Love him, but as a 6th man. We already have a 6th man in Thornton, and Barea isn't leapfrogging anyone in a Reke/Thornton/Jimmer backcourt, and he isn't signing anywhere as a 4th guard. I asked who could be a starting pg for us through free agency? I guess I should clarify, that I meant an upgrade, although I thought that was obvious. Aaron Brooks could also hypothetically start for us, but it won't happen.

Well, you and I have a major disagreement on that one. I think he'd play 30+ minutes a game, and Jimmer would be the 4th man.

 

[Kingster]

The Idea of signing Barea after we traded Beno for Salmons, when we could have just kept Beno and signed AK or Prince ... kind of makes me sick.

Does signing Watson make you feel any better?

 

[Kingster]

I think Tyreke just does what he's done all his life. When the going gets tough, a person tends to stay with whats familar and comfortable. It has nothing to do with growing a brain. Tyreke knows how to play the game. But old habits die hard. Ask any self-taught golfer how hard it is to take a series of lessons and apply the changes necessary to improve. It doesn't happen overnight. Thats not an excuse, its just the way it is. It takes time to erase old muscle memory and replace it with new. We're not just asking Tyreke to improve his game, we're asking him to change his game. Much harder! That requires an entirely different mental approach to the game. A little patience on our part is required.

Do we still not know if Tyreke has a legit shooting coach? Or is he just going out on the range hacking away with the stroke that "he thinks" he's supposed to practice?

PS If at the beginning of next season I see Garcia do his high leg kick on his shooting form I'm going to have to look seriously at the baja suicide pact...

 

[Agent23]

Do we still not know if Tyreke has a legit shooting coach? Or is he just going out on the range hacking away with the stroke that "he thinks" he's supposed to practice?

PS If at the beginning of next season I see Garcia do his high leg kick on his shooting form I'm going to have to look seriously at the baja suicide pact...

Rob Mclanahan. He's in LA right now actually.

 

[Kingster]

Rob Mclanahan. He's in LA right now actually.

Excellent. He looks legit.

http://robmacbasketball.com/

Also, from doing a little reading, he also advises on diet.

 

[est.1999]

Didn't Reke train briefly with RobMac last year?

 

[bajaden]

Whatever it was they were trying to run, it was executed so poorly that it can't be used as justification to exclude a more-or-less traditional PG from the Kings' future plans.




Both those teams were coached by Phil Jackson (and ofcourse had MJ/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq). No other coach in the NBA has been able to run a similar offense with results even coming close to those that Phil produced.



I completely agree here. That's actually part of my point. In the Triangle/Motion offense everyone is a fascilitator, so the PG doesn't need to be the focus of the offense and is not especially important anyway. In a more traditional style, the PG needs to focus more on fascilitating and less on scoring, otherwise the offense becomes stagnant and predictable.



Not really. I have no problem with Jimmer being the third guard. What I do have a problem with is the idea that the Kings can rely on Tyreke and Jimmer as the long term answers at the PG position. Tyreke is an important part of the franchise going forward, but he is not a PG. I don't follow college ball so all I know about Jimmer is from external reports, but I haven't read anything that would make me believe that he can be the Kings' primary PG of the future.




I wasn't criticising Rose or Deron. They are both extremely talented players who are capable of winning rings in the future. However, at least in Rose's case the way he was being used hurt the bulls. I don't agree that the Bulls didn't have other scoring options. Deng and Korver were doing well offensively, and even Boozer and Bogans were doing fine, but Rose (or rather Thibs) felt like he had to carry the scoring load despite his horrible FG% throughout the series and the fact that Miami focused all of their defensive effort on him, and forced the issue too much. That was the major reason, imo, for the Bulls' elimination in that series.

As for Deron, I think he actually does a good job balancing the scoring and fascilitating. If Tyreke did that on the Kings, I would be much happier with him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the things we disagree on. Which I don't really think is very much. You said you haven't read much that makes you think Jimmer can be a conventional PG in the NBA. Well, you've read my posts! Not to toot my own horn, but I probably know more about Fredette than most of the pundits you may have read. I might add that many of the NBA scouts agree with my analogy, but you'll just have to take my word for that.

I won't get into the " is Tyreke a PG or not " arguement. I've never called him a PG, and I don't particularly care what anyone wants to call him. He's a very talented player with very special abiltities that are hard to find. Remember, I grew up when there was no term such as point guard. You just had two guards, two forwards, and a center. All this other stuff came later. Walt Frasier and Pearl Monroe both, would have been considered PG's by todays standards, but they played next to each other. And they played well. What was the biggest question when they were paired? Would they be able to play with just one ball? Answer? Yes! Good players work these things out.

So sorry, but from my point of view, all this point guard talk is just a bunch of nonsense. You bring the ball up, and you pass the ball. Its not rocket science. But thats just my opinion. I've been watching basketball for a long time, and I think people want to make it more difficult than it is. All you need are talented players, and a couple of special players.

Also, on the Bulls series with the Heat. I watched the entire series and Boozer was very inconsistent in that series. 7 pts on game and 20 the next. I'm a big Korver fan, but he was simply terrible in that series. Noah was OK, but he's just not a scorer. Deng was probably the only consistent scorer on the team. I thought going in that the Bulls could win that series, and if Boozer had played up to his normal game, they may have pulled it off. Or not!

 

[bajaden]

Do we still not know if Tyreke has a legit shooting coach? Or is he just going out on the range hacking away with the stroke that "he thinks" he's supposed to practice?

PS If at the beginning of next season I see Garcia do his high leg kick on his shooting form I'm going to have to look seriously at the baja suicide pact...

Hey! Welcome to the club. We can go together..... To answer your first question, all I know is that he has been working out in LA. I assume at the same place he worked out last offseason. I know that he's also made appearances in the Drew league there which goes on all summer long. I know he also participated in a basketball camp for youngsters. Other than that, I know nothing...

 

[Agent23]

Didn't Reke train briefly with RobMac last year?

Yea. He got hurt during his workouts which caused him to not have a chance at making the US National team which lingered into the season thus his lackluster season.

 

[Glenn]

So sorry, but from my point of view, all this point guard talk is just a bunch of nonsense. You bring the ball up, and you pass the ball. Its not rocket science. But thats just my opinion. I've been watching basketball for a long time, and I think people want to make it more difficult than it is. All you need are talented players, and a couple of special players.

Thank you. It is as if there is a manual somewhere that defines each position and a team MUST be made up of a PG, SG, SF, PF, and center each having a defined role. Last year we had a center who played PF and no one complained that we needed a "true" PF. Why not? What position did Daly play? He was a center on offense and a PF on defense in many games. Makes no difference what we call him.

It may be an age thing as I grew up as did you with 2 guards, 2 forwards, and a center. There was little concern about getting any more detailed in the defintions. Why should there be?

Perhaps it is a need to sound knowledgable. In any case, find me 8-9 players who can play well together and we can sort out the position definitions later. Let's not take the opposite view of having the positions and finding the guy to fit them. This seems to be where people are butting heads.

 

[est.1999]

Yea. He got hurt during his workouts which caused him to not have a chance at making the US National team which lingered into the season thus his lackluster season.

No, he got hurt in the USA basketball camp.

 

[Asaf]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the things we disagree on. Which I don't really think is very much. You said you haven't read much that makes you think Jimmer can be a conventional PG in the NBA. Well, you've read my posts! Not to toot my own horn, but I probably know more about Fredette than most of the pundits you may have read. I might add that many of the NBA scouts agree with my analogy, but you'll just have to take my word for that.

I won't get into the " is Tyreke a PG or not " arguement. I've never called him a PG, and I don't particularly care what anyone wants to call him. He's a very talented player with very special abiltities that are hard to find. Remember, I grew up when there was no term such as point guard. You just had two guards, two forwards, and a center. All this other stuff came later. Walt Frasier and Pearl Monroe both, would have been considered PG's by todays standards, but they played next to each other. And they played well. What was the biggest question when they were paired? Would they be able to play with just one ball? Answer? Yes! Good players work these things out.

So sorry, but from my point of view, all this point guard talk is just a bunch of nonsense. You bring the ball up, and you pass the ball. Its not rocket science. But thats just my opinion. I've been watching basketball for a long time, and I think people want to make it more difficult than it is. All you need are talented players, and a couple of special players.

Also, on the Bulls series with the Heat. I watched the entire series and Boozer was very inconsistent in that series. 7 pts on game and 20 the next. I'm a big Korver fan, but he was simply terrible in that series. Noah was OK, but he's just not a scorer. Deng was probably the only consistent scorer on the team. I thought going in that the Bulls could win that series, and if Boozer had played up to his normal game, they may have pulled it off. Or not!

In regard to Jimmer, I didn't say he can't be a conventional PG in the NBA, I said that from what I read it doesn't sound like he can be an elite PG, or in other words he can't be the Kings' long term answer as the starting PG if they want to become a contender some day. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from what I read, including your posts.

As for the whole PG issue, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree... I believe the PG position was created for a reason, and unless you are playing a very specific style of basketball (and running it successfully) there is still a huge need for a great player in that position in modern basketball. It is still widely accepted in the NBA that PG and Center are the two toughest positions to fill successfully. Center, because you need to find someone tall and big enough to fill that position, which is rare enough, and on top of that he needs to have NBA level basketball skills. PGs, you can find a ton of players with the right size, but their skills have to be special, both physically and intellectually (for lack of a better word). Bringing the ball up the court and passing it, anyone can do that, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, etc. can do a lot more than that, and that's why they are considered elite PGs, as opposed to Derek Fisher, who can bring up the ball and pass it just fine.

One of the posters here (Lockehead, if I'm not mistaken), said in a thread that this whole "just a guard" theory is a copout, and I completely agree. Being able to play more than one position is a good thing, but you have to be a complete player in at least one position. Westphal telling Tyreke that the position definition is not important actually hindered Tyreke's development, because he was never required to master any position. He does not have the fascilitating skills of a conventional PG, and does not have an off-the-ball game of a SG. If he doesn't develop at least one of those skills, the team will hurt, and this is one of my main beefs with Westphal. He is not pushing Tyreke to define his game in a way that the team can thrive around. Tyreke can do special things, but his incompleteness is hurting the team and will continue to hurt it until he gets proper coaching. Until that happens, I cannot see him as the long term answer at the PG position either.

Whatever you want to call it, PG or guard, the primary fascilitator is the engine of every good team. Currently, the Kings have no engine.

 

[Glenn]

It's amazing how the teams of the past like the old Lakers and Celtics were able to even compete because the didn't have a PG. They just had guys defined the way Westphal defines it. They had two guards.