Is the team underachieving

[LWP777]

A lot of us are simply looking at this team with rose-colored glasses. A common misconception is that our coaches are holding players back, preventing them from fulfilling their potential. In fact, the opposite is true. By far, most of our former players performed better with the Kings than with subsequent teams. Here are some of them:

Omri Casspi - this guy was our starter for a while (and was even good enough to be on the All Rookie team). Right now shooting horribly and rarely get off the pine. Looking likely to be out of the league soon.

Nocioni - this dude was another starter. After leaving Sac he rode the pine for a bit and now out of the league.

Beno - our best PG since Bibby (not saying much). Now a backup PG.

Donte Greene - another one of our former "core" player. Out of the league now.

KMart - the only guy who was as good post Kings as he was during his time here.

Hickson - the only guy who is better after his stay here, turns out he just didn't want to be here.

Dalembert - was playing decently for the Rockets until he played his way out of the starting lineup. Now a 17 min a game player.

Note that all of the above were our "core" players. Basically most of them performed worse after they left.

Regarding the current team, aside from Cousins/Evans, the rest of the Kings' roster are filled with guys pretending to be what they're not (starters, second string PG, or simply an NBA player). Looking at the roster now, the following is pretty much what will happen after (if) they leave the Kings:

Salmons - out of the league.

Gracia - ditto.

Outlaw - yup.

JT - a backup big if he goes to a semi-decent team.

IT - third string PG.

Brooks - backup PG.

JJ - backup SF.

Jimmer - backup SG/PG.

Thornton - sixth man.

TRob - jury is still out.

Hayes - end of the bench PF

Basically our #3 to #13 are either bench players or worse, don't even belong in the league. We have two bona fide starters, a pretty good sixth man, and then a bunch of scrubs.

Yeah, a lot of talent there.

Another great post. I remember telling the board how horrible Casspi was but everybody wanted to believe he was the next star SF. Same thing with Greene. He was the 6'10" guy who could do everything and was going to turn our franchise around. Currently, I'm getting bashed for my criticism of Cousins. We'll see how that turns out in 5 years.

I get that we are all huge Kings fans here and most come with a big bias but we need to start being honest with ourselves. There really hasn't been any real talent on this team since Webber left. We had a somewhat above average veteran team after he left with an aging Bibby, Peja (who turned into Artest) and a nice young player in Kmart but it was clear they were never going to get past the 1st round of the playoffs.

Petrie just hasn't been able to piece it together. He's done okay in the draft except he just hasn't really struck gold and he's had a couple of huge mistakes (Douby, Jimmer). It's mostly his horrible trades that have held us back for years to come.

[Bricklayer]

I get that we are all huge Kings fans here and most come with a big bias but we need to start being honest with ourselves. There really hasn't been any real talent on this team since Webber left.

I don't think you would know real talent if you saw it. But that is compounded by your incredibly unrealistic assessment of teams outside of the Kings. Of COURSE we only have a couple of truly talented pieces, surrounded by bit guys. Other than the modern superteams, that's the same structure everybody has. Only way it works both on the court, and on the books financially.

[LWP777]

I don't think you would know real talent if you saw it. But that is compounded by your incredibly unrealistic assessment of teams outside of the Kings. Of COURSE we only have a couple of truly talented pieces, surrounded by bit guys. Other than the modern superteams, that's the same structure everybody has. Only way it works both on the court, and on the books financially.

What is my assessment of teams outside the Kings? I've made no mention of that. I don't disagree with you on how teams are constructed. I just think that you completely over value our top 2-3 guys and you don't realize how bad our 4-12 guys are.

Here is our record since we blew up the Webber-era team:

2012-13: 4-10
2011-12: 22-44
2010-11: 24-58
2009-10: 25-57
2008-09: 17-65

You cannot blame all of that on poor coaching, bad GM'ing, bad owners, bad arena, etc. While I agree all of those items are sub-standard they do not result in a .393 winning percentage over a 5 year period. Talent supersedes all else in the NBA. It finds a way to win. If Kenny Natt was coaching the Miami Heat, he would win championships and be labeled as a genius.

[beb0p]

Err ... If anything I would think this just goes to show that our team should be winning more games now than we did with those guys ... That was the excuse then - that our SFs were Omri and Donte, both of whom are nowhere near being rotational players in the league now. To say Donte was a core player is also pure and total BS. Neither Westphal nor Smart ever gave him consistent minutes. We used to have Darnell Jackson and Pooh Jeter as some of our main bench players. Would you rather Jackson/Jeter or Hayes/IT? We've also continued to add high draft picks.

That is some revisionist history there - first, Greene was talked about as the next Rashard Lewis. When it became apparent that he can't shoot, he was branded as an awesome defensive specialist. Casspi was envisioned as a good stop-gap until Greene get his act together but was viewed favorably as eventually developing into a very good sixth man type, even drawing Hedo comparison. No one here ever said Casspi is not NBA material. No one ever said Greene is not NBA worthy. In fact, a lot of posters thought Greene is immensely talented (not true) but a bit lazy (true). Greene and Casspi (to a lesser extend) was overrated just like some of the players now are being overrated.

Jackson/Jeter or Hayes/IT? That's like asking Geo Metro or Yugo? How about we have better standard? I admit Hayes/It is less garbage than Jackson/Jeter but it is nothing to brag about.

Donte Greene started more than 50% of the games in 10-11. Started another 20+ games in 11-12 before falling off the earth least season. What do you call a guy who started that many games? Not a "core" player? Strange.

Noc was a very good player for Chicago before coming to SAC, and he's already 33 now. Hayes was Houston's starting center for a long time with Yao out, and did a decent job of it. I think Brooks would still be a starting PG in the league given some time to adjust back to playing in the NBA.

Noc never averaged more than 30 mins before he arrived in Sac and he never averaged more than 30 min after he left Sac. He was by far the best SF we had post Artest (which is sad) and his stellar play at the beginning of 09-10 (at one point was shutting down Kevin Durrant no less) was a big reason the Kings got off to a great start. But then was benched in favor of the player you said is not part of the core. He only spend 1.5 season in Sac, it not like he aged 10 years here. The point is he was a natural bench player asked to carry the load of a starter and to his credit occasionally succeeded but was asked to do too much nonetheless.

So I don't quite get what you mean by players performing better in SAC. They get older in SAC, and then go on to better teams where they either become backups or they've gotten older and after their "performance" in SAC nobody wants them. 2 of our "scrubs" are our last two lottery picks.

Jesus, how old do you think Casspi, Greene, Landry, Noc, Beno are? 40? Those guys are still in their productive years. If anything, getting older should make them better players (especially true for the youngsters) but somehow they are less productive after they left Sacramento. That's a fact. They are less production or got demoted to lessor roles after Sacramento.

Today, a bunch of scrubs (Splitter, James Anderson, Matt Bonner, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills, Dejuan Blair, Nando De Colo) almost beat the Miami Heat. I'd like to see you do an analysis of the Spurs' players and compare their talent level with ours. Sure, they'd probably "out-talent" us at the final count, but I question whether that amount of talent alone makes the difference between 4-10 and 13-3.

It's just one game and it's not like they actually beat the Heat. Obviously the Spurs cannot win consistently with that lineup. Last season, the Kings beat the Lakers, Spurs, and Thunder. Doesn't matter, they still sucked.

So once again ... what do we always lament?

1) Coaches: Spurs' game today is living proof of what good coaches can do
2) Badly assembled team in terms of fit and roles (not so much talent): SF problem still unsolved in more than the time it took for Lakers to win 2 championships and Ron Artest to change his name

It goes beyond just the coach and the SF position. The Kings need:

1. A real coach
2. A starting caliber PG
3. A starting caliber SF
4. A shot-blocker (move JT to backup)
5. Deeper bench
6. Less selfishness from their two best players

We are a long way from winning consistently.

[beb0p]

I don't think you would know real talent if you saw it. But that is compounded by your incredibly unrealistic assessment of teams outside of the Kings. Of COURSE we only have a couple of truly talented pieces, surrounded by bit guys. Other than the modern superteams, that's the same structure everybody has. Only way it works both on the court, and on the books financially.

Which is absolutely not true. Those bit guys you referred to only appear untalented to you because they embrace their reduced roles but would otherwise put up numbers if they are given the chance.

I just finished watching the Warriors, by no means a super team, bring a good PG (Jack) off the bench to ice them the game, plus a good backup PF by the name of Landry, who was a starter for us but is behind a more talented big man in GS. They also have Richard Jefferson on the bench, who is better than all of our SFs combined. And they also have Brandon Rush who, when healthy, is even better than Jefferson. On top of it, they have Bogut due to come back and a promising rookie at the wing. All that weapons in addition to their big three.

On the opposing side is Denver, also not a superteam but has Andre Miller, Javale McGee, and Wilson Chandler... coming off the bench! Any of those guys could start for the Kings but on the Nuggets they are bench players. That's pretty much said it all right there.

[mac]

That is some revisionist history there - first, Greene was talked about as the next Rashard Lewis. When it became apparent that he can't shoot, he was branded as an awesome defensive specialist. Casspi was envisioned as a good stop-gap until Greene get his act together but was viewed favorably as eventually developing into a very good sixth man type, even drawing Hedo comparison. No one here ever said Casspi is not NBA material. No one ever said Greene is not NBA worthy. In fact, a lot of posters thought Greene is immensely talented (not true) but a bit lazy (true). Greene and Casspi (to a lesser extend) was overrated just like some of the players now are being overrated.

Jackson/Jeter or Hayes/IT? That's like asking Geo Metro or Yugo? How about we have better standard? I admit Hayes/It is less garbage than Jackson/Jeter but it is nothing to brag about.

Donte Greene started more than 50% of the games in 10-11. Started another 20+ games in 11-12 before falling off the earth least season. What do you call a guy who started that many games? Not a "core" player? Strange.



Noc never averaged more than 30 mins before he arrived in Sac and he never averaged more than 30 min after he left Sac. He was by far the best SF we had post Artest (which is sad) and his stellar play at the beginning of 09-10 (at one point was shutting down Kevin Durrant no less) was a big reason the Kings got off to a great start. But then was benched in favor of the player you said is not part of the core. He only spend 1.5 season in Sac, it not like he aged 10 years here. The point is he was a natural bench player asked to carry the load of a starter and to his credit occasionally succeeded but was asked to do too much nonetheless.




Jesus, how old do you think Casspi, Greene, Landry, Noc, Beno are? 40? Those guys are still in their productive years. If anything, getting older should make them better players (especially true for the youngsters) but somehow they are less productive after they left Sacramento. That's a fact. They are less production or got demoted to lessor roles after Sacramento.




It's just one game and it's not like they actually beat the Heat. Obviously the Spurs cannot win consistently with that lineup. Last season, the Kings beat the Lakers, Spurs, and Thunder. Doesn't matter, they still sucked.



It goes beyond just the coach and the SF position. The Kings need:

1. A real coach
2. A starting caliber PG
3. A starting caliber SF
4. A shot-blocker (move JT to backup)
5. Deeper bench
6. Less selfishness from their two best players

We are a long way from winning consistently.

You are missing my point. You claim that we keep blaming the coach without reason, when it is the talent level that causes us to suck this much. Through your own analysis of guys like Donte, Omri and my added examples of Jeter/Jackson, it is shown that we are a deeper team now than we were in Evans' rookie year and Cuz's rookie year. In that time, we've replaced these guys with more talented people while essentially only losing a "backup PG" in Beno and Dalembert who is a "17 min a game player". So we haven't lost much. In the meantime, Cousins and Evans have also improved their games. So here's the question - why are we not winning more than we were when we had these less talented players? You say that the claim that the coaches are holding the team back is not the cause of our struggles. Well, we've improved on the talent front, so why haven't we improved then?

There is a difference between what we hope a player becomes and what actually happens. Donte showed that he did have the talent to fill what we needed at the SF spot. He had very good size too. No one in his right mind is here claiming that we have Steve Nash on our bench in Jimmer. But the talent gap alone is not so huge as to explain why we are one of the worst teams in the league.

Another question is whether our guys are truly less talented, or whether other teams' bench players appear more talented because of the coaching and system.

Let's compare ourselves with the Spurs, taking Ginobili and MT as starters.

Splitter - Hayes
Gary Neal - Brooks
Patty Mills - IT
Stephen Jackson - JJ
Matt Bonner - TRob

Is the gap in talent really that huge? Sure, when you include the starters we lose out, but does it amount to us being bottom 5 year after year while the Spurs make the conference semis/WCFs? Keep in mind that our guys are also much younger.

Are Danny Green and Leonard really that great? Or do they just fill a very important role for them by playing good D and hitting open shots? Is that really a talent thing?

Therein lies the biggest difference IMO. We keep seeking players who can create their own shots, who can handle the ball. Remember - 3 guys in the lineup who can handle the ball (Westphal and Smart said that). But here's how all winning teams structure their teams: they get a few offensive stars, and tell everyone else to just play good D and hit open shots created by those 2 or 3 guys. But not us, no, we want James Johnson, Thomas Robinson, John Salmons to run the break and create shots for others.

Also: you're just acting stupid if you took my ageing comment to refer to guys like Greene and Omri. I trust you have a little more common sense than that. Here's a funny thing - how come all those guys (Landry, Noc, Dalembert) performed better with their previous teams than with us? Beno is about the only one who came over and became a very good player for us. In Thornton's case he wasn't getting many minutes with the Hornets before coming over.

There's just some logical loophole or something in your argument that is causing me to not fully understand you. You say that the coaching is not the problem, because untalented guys came here and played better than wherever they are now. But these untalented guys were playing pretty well too prior to coming here ... So it's either they are talented and our coaches suck, or they aren't talented and our coaches suck more than their old coaches... Either way it seems like our coaches suck if you ask me.

[mac]

Which is absolutely not true. Those bit guys you referred to only appear untalented to you because they embrace their reduced roles but would otherwise put up numbers if they are given the chance.

I just finished watching the Warriors, by no means a super team, bring a good PG (Jack) off the bench to ice them the game, plus a good backup PF by the name of Landry, who was a starter for us but is behind a more talented big man in GS. They also have Richard Jefferson on the bench, who is better than all of our SFs combined. And they also have Brandon Rush who, when healthy, is even better than Jefferson. On top of it, they have Bogut due to come back and a promising rookie at the wing. All that weapons in addition to their big three.

On the opposing side is Denver, also not a superteam but has Andre Miller, Javale McGee, and Wilson Chandler... coming off the bench! Any of those guys could start for the Kings but on the Nuggets they are bench players. That's pretty much said it all right there.

One could just as easily argue that Brooks and Hayes were the starters on a .500 Rocket team and now come off the bench for us (until recently in Brooks' case). Salmons started for the Bucks and they were also a .500 team that made the playoffs. Outlaw was a key bench player for a very good Blazers team, and now we don't even play him!

See how that argument doesn't exactly hold water?

[beb0p]

You are missing my point. You claim that we keep blaming the coach without reason, when it is the talent level that causes us to suck this much. Through your own analysis of guys like Donte, Omri and my added examples of Jeter/Jackson, it is shown that we are a deeper team now than we were in Evans' rookie year and Cuz's rookie year. In that time, we've replaced these guys with more talented people while essentially only losing a "backup PG" in Beno and Dalembert who is a "17 min a game player". So we haven't lost much. In the meantime, Cousins and Evans have also improved their games. So here's the question - why are we not winning more than we were when we had these less talented players? You say that the claim that the coaches are holding the team back is not the cause of our struggles. Well, we've improved on the talent front, so why haven't we improved then?

I DID NOT claim that and I've repeatedly said I have no intention of defending Smart. You keep trying to make me defend Smart and I'm not going to fall for it.

But on the talent issue. Really, you think IT or Brooks is more talented than Beno? You think Salmons is more talented than Nocioni? Both teams' talent level is pretty much flat but the BIGGEST difference is not the coach, it is the collection of pieces that don't fit on this team while the previous version, while not talented, at least has some semblance of what an NBA team should be.

There is a difference between what we hope a player becomes and what actually happens. Donte showed that he did have the talent to fill what we needed at the SF spot. He had very good size too. No one in his right mind is here claiming that we have Steve Nash on our bench in Jimmer. But the talent gap alone is not so huge as to explain why we are one of the worst teams in the league.

Another question is whether our guys are truly less talented, or whether other teams' bench players appear more talented because of the coaching and system.

Let's compare ourselves with the Spurs, taking Ginobili and MT as starters.

Splitter - Hayes
Gary Neal - Brooks
Patty Mills - IT
Stephen Jackson - JJ
Matt Bonner - TRob

Is the gap in talent really that huge? Sure, when you include the starters we lose out, but does it amount to us being bottom 5 year after year while the Spurs make the conference semis/WCFs? Keep in mind that our guys are also much younger.

Are Danny Green and Leonard really that great? Or do they just fill a very important role for them by playing good D and hitting open shots? Is that really a talent thing?

Maybe on pager (if you're just looking at stats) they are similar but did you notice that the Spurs has a very significant size advantage in ALL but one of your comparison? You can't compare a 6'11 dude to a 6'6" midget, even if they put up similar stats the 6'11" impacts the game much more than his shorter counterpart. Similarly Neal is 6'-4, Brooks is 5'-11. Mills is 6'-0, IT is 5'-9. See the pattern here? Not only are many of the Kings scrubby, they are also undersized! That's a bad combo.

Using your example, I'd compare the Spurs to Kings this way - according to roles/position/size:

Splitter = JT
Blair = Hayes
Leonard > Salmons
Green > JJ
Mills > IT
Neal > Brooks
SJax > Gracia
Diaw > Outlaw
Bonner = TRob
Anderson > Honeycutt

So basically the Spurs beat Kings on most and tie on a few. You cannot say that the Kings' scrubs are equally talented as the Spurs' role players. They're not.

Therein lies the biggest difference IMO. We keep seeking players who can create their own shots, who can handle the ball. Remember - 3 guys in the lineup who can handle the ball (Westphal and Smart said that). But here's how all winning teams structure their teams: they get a few offensive stars, and tell everyone else to just play good D and hit open shots created by those 2 or 3 guys. But not us, no, we want James Johnson, Thomas Robinson, John Salmons to run the break and create shots for others.

Also: you're just acting stupid if you took my ageing comment to refer to guys like Greene and Omri. I trust you have a little more common sense than that. Here's a funny thing - how come all those guys (Landry, Noc, Dalembert) performed better with their previous teams than with us? Beno is about the only one who came over and became a very good player for us. In Thornton's case he wasn't getting many minutes with the Hornets before coming over.

I don't know what you're talking about. Noc did not perform better with the Bulls than with the Kings. In fact, he had his best streak as a King. Dalembert is pretty much same as he was in Philly. Landry had his best statistical year with the Kings.

There's just some logical loophole or something in your argument that is causing me to not fully understand you. You say that the coaching is not the problem<---------- (WHAAAA!!!!! Not true.), because untalented guys came here and played better than wherever they are now. But these untalented guys were playing pretty well too prior to coming here ... So it's either they are talented and our coaches suck, or they aren't talented and our coaches suck more than their old coaches... Either way it seems like our coaches suck if you ask me.

Maybe you're not understanding my point because you didn't get it? Nowhere did I say the highlighted above. You kept trying to force this on me and I'm simply not going to go there. Nice try. But maybe you should debate what I actually said not what you want me to say.

[beb0p]

One could just as easily argue that Brooks and Hayes were the starters on a .500 Rocket team and now come off the bench for us (until recently in Brooks' case). Salmons started for the Bucks and they were also a .500 team that made the playoffs. Outlaw was a key bench player for a very good Blazers team, and now we don't even play him!

See how that argument doesn't exactly hold water?

Ok, I'm going to have to explain the difference between your comparison and mine. 1. My comparison focuses on the players' own ability, not their respective teams' records and whether or not they started for them. Some good players play for bad teams, some scrubs play for good teams. Who started for whom and what the teams' records are makes little difference to me. Hayes and Brooks may have started for the Rockets, but in Hayes' case he played around 20 mins and no one ever confused him with a bona fide starting calibre center. He was a stop-gap solution platooning with Jordan Hill. To say that Hayes is a starting quality player because he platooned on a good team, is really pushing it. Using your logic, you'd look down on Kyrie Irving because his team's record is bad.

2. My comparison is about the players in their current state, not years ago. Brooks was once a decent starter but that was before his horrible 10-11 season exposed him. No one thought he was a starting PG since (at least not until the Kings) and he spend last season in China. Outlaw's last productive year was in 08-09... and even so he was nothing more than a good backup PF. Similarly Salmons was never the same since the 09-10 season. All but one of the guys you mentioned experienced RAPID decline prior to joining the Kings. To even suggest that they are on par with a Javale McGee or Bogut or Jarrett Jack is bizarre.

[Bricklayer]

What is my assessment of teams outside the Kings? I've made no mention of that. I don't disagree with you on how teams are constructed. I just think that you completely over value our top 2-3 guys and you don't realize how bad our 4-12 guys are.

Here is our record since we blew up the Webber-era team:

2012-13: 4-10
2011-12: 22-44
2010-11: 24-58
2009-10: 25-57
2008-09: 17-65

You cannot blame all of that on poor coaching, bad GM'ing, bad owners, bad arena, etc. While I agree all of those items are sub-standard they do not result in a .393 winning percentage over a 5 year period. Talent supersedes all else in the NBA. It finds a way to win. If Kenny Natt was coaching the Miami Heat, he would win championships and be labeled as a genius.

Listing off a bunch of unrelated years in a rebuild doesn't mean anything at all for a team's current talent. Of COURSE a team in the early rebuilding stages is going to be untalented. That's the whole point. Every franchise except the Lakers has those years. Hasn't been true here for several years now however.

[Bricklayer]

Ok, I'm going to have to explain the difference between your comparison and mine. 1. My comparison focuses on the players' own ability, not their respective teams' records and whether or not they started for them. Some good players play for bad teams, some scrubs play for good teams. Who started for whom and what the teams' records are makes little difference to me. Hayes and Brooks may have started for the Rockets, but in Hayes' case he played around 20 mins and no one ever confused him with a bona fide starting calibre center. He was a stop-gap solution platooning with Jordan Hill. To say that Hayes is a starting quality player because he platooned on a good team, is really pushing it. Using your logic, you'd look down on Kyrie Irving because his team's record is bad.

2. My comparison is about the players in their current state, not years ago. Brooks was once a decent starter but that was before his horrible 10-11 season exposed him. No one thought he was a starting PG since (at least not until the Kings) and he spend last season in China. Outlaw's last productive year was in 08-09... and even so he was nothing more than a good backup PF. Similarly Salmons was never the same since the 09-10 season. All but one of the guys you mentioned experienced RAPID decline prior to joining the Kings. To even suggest that they are on par with a Javale McGee or Bogut or Jarrett Jack is bizarre.

Ignoring for a moment the recurring suggestion that Jarret Jack is an imposing talent, how about this imposing supporting cast:

Kevin Martin, Thabo Seflaosha, Kendrick Perkins, Eric Maynor, Nick Collison, Hasheem Thabeet
or this one:
Mike Conley, Tony Allen, Marresse Speights, Jeryd Bayless, Quincy Poindexter, Wayne Ellington
or this one:
Gary Neal, Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, Stephen Jackson, DeJauan Blair, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills, Matt Bonner


AIIIEEE!!! Please save me from the terrifying depth of talent on the three top teams in the West. Truly. I am scared.

But they are well coached, they know their roles, and they fit. It makes a tremendous difference. It would for this supporting crew too:

Jason Thompson, Aaron Brooks, Chuck Hayes, James Johnson, Isaiah Thomas, John Salmons, Thomas Robinson

[ESP47]

We can basically blame our lack of wins this year on Demarcus Cousins.

We have 4 wins. Out of those 4 wins, Cousins had 2 good games, 1 decent game and 1 bad game.

Out of our 10 losses, he played well in one of them and that was just because of his efficient second half against the Nets. The rest of the games were "meh" or just down right bad. Also he didn't play in two of them...which of course turned out to be losses.

We can't deny that we are more talented than last year, so of course were underachieving. Either way, if we achieve what the talent is capable of, we still don't sniff the 8th playoff seed because our big 3 Tyreke/Thornton/Cousins just aren't good enough.

Honestly, it only takes 1 player. If we could just pull one Dwayne Wade or Kevin Durant jr out of the draft that can put up 20 points and play well more often than not, we instantly start winning games again.

[HereWeVivek]

in my dream last night, the Kings traded DeMarcus to the Bulls. i was so pissed!. thank god it was a dream

[LWP777]

in my dream last night, the Kings traded DeMarcus to the Bulls. i was so pissed!. thank god it was a dream

What if he was traded for Noah and Rose? Still pissed?

[HereWeVivek]

^lol no. but thats not a move that would ever happen. unless Rose was retired with his Knee injury

[blackice]

I don't feel were underachieving, I just think we set our expectations a bit higher compared to last season. A lot of us knew that going into this season that Smart was going to do the same thing as last season, play a 11-12 man rotation with inconsistent minutes and no defines roles. It was up to our players to improve as a team and try to help fight the deficiences Smart carries with him, up to this point that hasn't happened.

[beb0p]

Ignoring for a moment the recurring suggestion that Jarret Jack is an imposing talent, how about this imposing supporting cast:

Kevin Martin, Thabo Seflaosha, Kendrick Perkins, Eric Maynor, Nick Collison, Hasheem Thabeet
or this one:
Mike Conley, Tony Allen, Marresse Speights, Jeryd Bayless, Quincy Poindexter, Wayne Ellington
or this one:
Gary Neal, Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, Stephen Jackson, DeJauan Blair, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills, Matt Bonner


AIIIEEE!!! Please save me from the terrifying depth of talent on the three top teams in the West. Truly. I am scared.

But they are well coached, they know their roles, and they fit. It makes a tremendous difference. It would for this supporting crew too:

Jason Thompson, Aaron Brooks, Chuck Hayes, James Johnson, Isaiah Thomas, John Salmons, Thomas Robinson

I know you're not too fond of KMart, but listing him as some kind of scrub on the level of a John Salmons is really really stretching it. Likewise, Sefolosha - can hit the three, defend, athletic, doesn't need the ball; where do I sign up? Sefolosha is what the Kings have been searching for years! Sefolosha is not a srub, heck I'd trade all of our SFs for him in a heartbeat. But I am surprised you put Hasheem Thabeet there, seeing that you were his biggest fanboy prior to the 09 draft. But if you had seen him played this season, you wouldn't list him as a scrub. The Thunder signed him to less than a million a year, that's looking like the steal of the year the way the tall guy has been playing. Also, Kendrick Perkins, the guy is not a scrub; to put him on the same level as JT would embarrass even JT.

I can go on, but I applaud your effort to pass Mike Conley, Tony Allen, Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, etc as on par with our scrubs.

[Bricklayer]

I can go on, but I applaud your effort to pass Mike Conley, Tony Allen, Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, etc as on par with our scrubs.

I applaud your effort to continue labeling our equivalent players scrubs and everybody else's, studs, despite all evidence to the contrary. Takes some serious stubborness and squinting, but you are consistently up for it.

Like most riffraff, including our own, they look as good as the system they are in and the role they have to play. JJ Hickson starts to play well in Cleveland, gets traded here and sucks, then leaves and plays well in Portland. Did he suddenly lose his talent while he was here? No. All about system, roles, and coaches knowing what to do with you.

[mac]

Ok, I'm going to have to explain the difference between your comparison and mine. 1. My comparison focuses on the players' own ability, not their respective teams' records and whether or not they started for them. Some good players play for bad teams, some scrubs play for good teams. Who started for whom and what the teams' records are makes little difference to me. Hayes and Brooks may have started for the Rockets, but in Hayes' case he played around 20 mins and no one ever confused him with a bona fide starting calibre center. He was a stop-gap solution platooning with Jordan Hill. To say that Hayes is a starting quality player because he platooned on a good team, is really pushing it. Using your logic, you'd look down on Kyrie Irving because his team's record is bad.

2. My comparison is about the players in their current state, not years ago. Brooks was once a decent starter but that was before his horrible 10-11 season exposed him. No one thought he was a starting PG since (at least not until the Kings) and he spend last season in China. Outlaw's last productive year was in 08-09... and even so he was nothing more than a good backup PF. Similarly Salmons was never the same since the 09-10 season. All but one of the guys you mentioned experienced RAPID decline prior to joining the Kings. To even suggest that they are on par with a Javale McGee or Bogut or Jarrett Jack is bizarre.

And Richard Jefferson at his age is now an imposing talent.

By the way - how are you judging players' talents? I can just as easily say that Landry has since experienced a RAPID decline and thus he is now a bench player. Which is why I talk about records, because how good a roleplayer appears is really largely based on coaching and the system he's in. I never questioned the talent level of any real stars; Ginobili/Parker/Duncan don't simply appear good in Pop's system. What is this objective criteria you are using to say that one role player is more talented than another - that Tiago Splitter is more talented than Chuck Hayes?

I suppose we just disagree on this front. In my opinion, a lot of these role players seem as good as they are (Javale Mcgee? Seriously?) because their coaches know how to use them correctly, to get them executing very well and contributing to the team.

Again, I do not disagree that we do indeed lack talent, or size especially as you mentioned. What I contend with is whether we lack so much talent that we are worst in the league year after year. Talent-wise we certainly have improved overall compared to when Noc was on the team. I never said IT and Brooks were better than Beno. Nor did I say Salmons was better than Noc. Check what I said. I said we essentially lost talent in Beno and Daly, but improved at all other positions, whether big or small. And now you're changing your stance again and saying that talent isn't the main reason why we're losing - it's fit.

Here is the point that I am attacking. "A common misconception is that our coaches are holding players back, preventing them from fulfilling their potential." Is that not defending the coach? Saying that the reason why we're losing is not because our coach can't get them to play well, but because they overall suck anyway?

Again, I agree with you that we are not a very deep team. But I do think that with a good coach, whether attainable or not, we would have a chance of making the playoffs as opposed to being in the running for the top 5 picks.

[Glenn]

We are deep enough to play a nine man rotation. Where it gets dicey is when it becomes an 11-12 man rotation. Smart seems more concerned about people's feelings than whether the team wins or loses. I will probably get heat for this but if we play Cuz, Reke, Brooks, MT, and JT with sure fire minutes and we get some decent role definition out of TRob and JJ, we aren't in bad shape going forward. That's 7. Then we have Salmons who seems to be carving out some kind of role and Hayes who has his uses although get us Gortat and I'd be happier. I don't think we are far away from having a decent team if they have assigned roles and they learn as most youngsters do.

I have a real hard time being down on the players. Now we need a coach who can teach youngsters and not one who needs to be taught how to coach.