That is a good read, thanks for posting it. Interesting that Cuz wore an IT jersey, could be interpreted in different ways.
RIP Dwayne Schintzius, nice av
Ok, I'm starting a rumor that Kings players want Cousins to be team's PG. You can quote me on that and I'm not even going to bother you with reading 1000 words of random statistics and facts.
From what I saw, the whole article took Cousins wearing a Thomas jersey and blew that up into a player revolt. Thin evidence, at best.
The player revolt issue, however, is different from the Thomas starting issue. I think that Brooks is definitely a better fit next to Evans, and a healthy Evans this year has been the straw that stirs the drink. However, he's been injured as of late, and that in itself leaves a pretty big hole on this team both offensively and defensively. IT just isn't a good fit next to Evans. We've done that, and it didn't lead to any more wins. In fact, one could argue that it led to fewer wins and minimized what Evans can do.
My solution would be to move IT (or Jimmer), paired with one of our 86 small forwards, to a different team in exchange for anything taller than 6' 9". At this point, I don't care about how good they are, I just want numbers that will force Smart to coach/distribute minutes with more rationality than he's been shown able to do.
I appreciate a good math pun - as long as it isn't too graphic.
"Namely, sources close to key Kings players have told ProBasketballTalk that they are frustrated with the fact that point guard Isaiah Thomas isnít starting and acting as the teamís floor general."
Read the article. If there are sources then there are sources talking about wanting IT to start, not an inference from a Cousins' t-shirt.
I find it funny how this article heaps so much praise on IT and his assist numbers and what not, and compares that with our "failed strategy" of Tyreke Evans and Cousins and what not. How many wins did we get last year again? I am somehow failing to see how IT as the primary ballhandler has shown any greater success than Evans and Cousins going 1 on 1. I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea going forward or that it can be further improved on, but to imply that our overall team play last year with IT at the helm was any better than any of our other past 3 seasons is not grounded in facts if you ask me.
On a side and somewhat related note, I watched the Knicks Nets game and JVG's basketball philosophy is some serious and sensible stuff. I would like him as coach. He talked about how Steve Novak hasn't had a turnover in the last 20 games because he doesn't try to do too much, he plays within his role which is to either catch and shoot or move the ball. Mike Woodson's coaching staff is also doing a good job motivating the players: they do "sprints" during practice after every time the Knicks commit less than 13 turnovers in a game. JVG also talked about how you give your elite offensive talent some freedom, referring to Carmelo pulling up for 3s in transition, but how you cannot offer that same freedom to your other guys like Raymond Felton. On the topic of Andray Blatche, JVG talked about how you can't just surround young guys with other young guys, because then they don't have anyone to teach them the proper way of doing things in the NBA. He said this is what Washington did and that's why Blatche was a good over there, but now with veterans around him he's playing much better. Also talked about how Woodson is tougher on JR Smith (and we see this with other teams too - Pop with Parker etc) because he sees that Smith is very talented but needs to learn good habits and to play good team basketball. Smith in turn attributed his improved play largely to Woodson's faith in him.
Compare this to our coach, who gives everyone the green light, who lets everyone dribble the ball up the court, who is best buds with Cousins instead of coaching him and demanding true star level performance from Cuz. Keith Smart has repeatedly said there are no stars on our team - so much for faith in your talent.
The article is an interesting read, but it's also a classic case of an article written to create drama rather than to report on real drama.
IT did deserve to come into this season as our starting PG, but he played poorly - making lots of mistakes (although his shooting was the best on the team in the early going). So I wasn't opposed to giving Brooks a chance to start and have IT be a spark plug off the bench. But now we've seen with our own eyes that Brooks has the same one-on-one tendencies as Evans, and now we're overloaded with one-on-one instincts instead of team ball. My preference is to trade Brooks - who does have some value - and give the ball to IT. When IT's not on the court, you've still got good ball handlers in Evans and Salmons, and an improving Jimmer. Now... what can we get by packaging Brooks with one or two other Kings...
If we're going to ship out a point guard for a difference maker at the 3 or 4, it's going to be Jimmer for salary reasons. That is, unless some other GM has such a crush on Thomas that they're willing to take Outlaw, Salmons, or Garcia just to get him. With IT's assist to t/o ratio this season and his bad defensive stats, he isn't the value that he was at the end of last season.
How could a team not start a guy named Isaiah Thomas at PG? Only the Kings would do something like that!
"Dealing with the Maloofs is like dealing with the North Koreans, except less competent." -- Chris Lehane, Director of Think Big
"Size doesn't make any difference; heart is what makes a difference." -- Jerry Sloan.
I noticed the team actually had some offense going when thomas was in last night. He and Cuz kept running pic n rolls.
BTW, the Santa Cuz video and the shot of him wearing IT's jersey is the side of Cuz that makes me defend him. He's a good guy with an out of control temper. Not so easy to change, BTW.
Upwards and onwards.
There are some pertinent points in the article aside from the IT stuff, the comments about the offense and Smarts inability to install anything remotely coherent is true.
And the low basketball IQ, not exactly a stunning observation but true non the less.